When taking a new drug, there is always a chance of having a
side effects, some of which can be benign, and others more severe. Those with
HIV/AIDS for example, will take dozens of medication, just to subdue the side
effects of the drug that is actually working to keep the patient alive and the
disease at bay. Scientists have been trying to decrease the number of side of
effects caused by drugs though molecular mechanisms, though it is hard to
imagine that a drug with virtually no side effects will develop in our
lifetime.
Questions to think about:
Do you think side effects are something we have to get used to, as
more and more diseases are medications for those diseases are developed?
Knowing that you have a non-life threatening disorder, such as acne, that
requires the use of drugs with severe side effects, would you still take those
drugs, or would you be more likely to live with the disease and wait for it to
wear off with age, if possible?
This article was interesting to me because although I clearly knew side effects exist, I never realized to what extent. Some of the side effects talked about in the article like Buccoglossal Syndrome are like diseases on their own. It did not specify what medicine or treatment causes this, but I personally feel that if this were a side effect for something non life threatening, like acne, I would rather not take the drugs that cure the acne, but cause this. I personally think that I would rather live with a non life threatening condition rather than take a drug with severe side effect. While acne would clearly be an annoying and embarrassing "disorder" to have, yellow vision or involuntary movements of the body are much more severe. I think the steps scientists are taking to alert people of potential side effects are very important. I think that once scientists figure out whats causing these side effects or what chemicals are reacting, I would be more willing to use a drug that may have a potential side effect because I feel that the scientist would know more about the side effect or may have found ways for the side effect to be less severe. However, if I had non life threatening disease that was slightly more intense or severe than acne, I may be more prone to try a drug with a severe side effect.
ReplyDeleteI do not think side effects are something we should just "get used to" as more medications for diseases are developed because scientists will continually be working on trying to get rid of side effects. I think small side effects are okay. For example, after having my wisdom teeth removed in high school, I was prescribed percocet. As a side effect, I became incredibly itchy when I took it. Another side effect that was listed on the bottle was "development of a black furry tongue" ( I am not kidding). Once i realized Advil took care of the pain and did not make me itchy, I stopped taking the percocet. However, after calling the dentist and being assured that the chances of the odd hairy tongue side effect were low, I did feel much more relaxed about the percocet. If I had no other choice like Advil, I believe I would have endured the itchiness side effect because it was not severe.
For me, it really comes down to what the disease is and what the potential side effects would be. Does the good of the drug outweigh the bad of the side effects?
Research on the biological and chemical sources of drug side effects is crucial to the field of medicine and advancing treatments. I do not think we should accept side effects for their face value. It is too simple to say that patients must live with certain side effects while they treat other ailments. Also, some of the side effects listed are diseases in and of themselves. If the biological and chemical factors for drugs are known, then it would be possible to alter these drugs so that they are safer.
ReplyDeleteIt is entirely up to the patient if they would be willing to live with certain side effects. Their personal tolerance for side effects should be taken into consideration. There are diseases in which the side effects must be tolerated or remedied in order to sustain life e.g. AIDS medications. However, acne is not life threatening disease but the social stigma of acne is frustrating. I personally would not take a drug with severe side effects simply for acne. I would research other milder or natural remedies. Ultimately each person must determine their own threshold for potential pain when deciding if they should start a new medication.
I believe that with more advanced technology and knowledge of both chemistry and biology, scientists can eventually discover the reason for many side effects (SE) and hopefully be able to reduce the severity of them. In today's world, we cannot "get used to" anything since technology is always advancing. However, until that time, the pros should outweigh the cons when choosing whether to take a medication that could potentially cause SEs. For instance, since acne is not life threatening and will eventually go away with age, one should consider not using medication that could cause effects that has a chance of causing Xanthopsia or any other known SE. On the other hand, if one had Xanthopsia and the SE of the medication was acne, one should consider taking the medication since acne is not life threatening while yellow vision is potentially harmful and stops you from doing everyday tasks (for example, driving).
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, interestingly, while reading this article, I was reminded of the Human Genome Project because all the researchers around the world worked together to sequence the entire genome. This article, stressed the need for biologists and chemists to work together to understand the cause of SEs such as Buccoglossal Syndrome.
I believe that eventually side effects from drugs will decrease. As we begin to understand more about the human body and the complex chemical reactions, we will be able to specialize drugs to only affect their specific purpose. However, this will not be accomplished for many years because research and development of drugs takes a long amount of time and money. Now many pharmaceutical companies put more of an emphasis on find new drugs to treat new diseases, as apposed to improving the ones they already have.
ReplyDeleteWith a non-life threatening disease, like acne, I would not take drugs. Instead I would take a more natural approach to the issue. I would first try to adjust my diet, exercise, and improve my hygiene before I took a drug to help with acne. Not only is it important to look at what drugs you put in your body, but what impact your daily life decisions have on your body.
Though much progress has been made in the medical field, our limited understanding of the many complex biological pathways and connections that exist in our body prevent scientists and chemists from creating drugs that are completely free of side effects. With more research and better technology, it may be possible that in the future (in my opinion in many, many years) drugs and therapies may be available that don’t have extremely injurious side effects. Currently, however, I think side effects are something we need to accept as a fact, given our inadequate understanding of the human body. This also means that we should be working toward improving the efficacy of drugs currently administered by trying to mitigate the severity of its side effects, which of course comes with an emphasis on biomedical research, chemistry, and technology. If we were to “get used” to the idea of side effects, then researchers like Duran and Aloy would not be making progress in their fields.
ReplyDeleteWhether a patient wants to take a certain drug, is of course their decision and choice. It is important that the doctor informs them about the benefits and drawbacks of the drugs that are available or advised for that patient. The patient should be able to decide what treatment they receive, given that they are appropriately informed. Thus, while I may not want to use a drug with severe side effects for a non-life threatening disease such as acne, that may not be the same case for others. For example, a model, whose career may depend on having good skin, may make a different choice.
Side effects are a complicated topic because there are many factors to consider – what percentage of the population did these effects occur in, who is more susceptible to these effects, etc. Hopefully, with progress in science and technology side effects will slowly disappear.
I believe that research and technology progress in the medical field, severe side effects of drugs must be addressed. I do not think that people should just “get used to” the side effects of their medication. I think that it is crucial to find a solution to these serious side effects to better the quality of life, especially for those with chronic illnesses, such as AIDS, who are completely dependent on some medications for survival.
ReplyDeleteFor another class I took at BU, I had to watch the film “The Medicated Child”. The film follows children diagnosed with ADHD and other disorders that are treated with psychiatric drugs. In the film, one child got severe side effects from his ADHD medication, and then needed to go on more medication to get rid of the side effects. The medications given to eliminate the original side effects gave him a twitch that he now is forced to live with. This is a perfect example of why side effects must be researched and addressed, especially when the side effect can have a life long effect, like a twitch.
I think that doctors need to be very straightforward about side effects of drugs, and then a patient can make an informed decision about if the side effects out-weigh the illness. Personally, I would not take an acne medication with severe side effects – I would first look to other solutions and only take the medication if absolutely necessary. That may not be the case for some but it is up to the individual to decide if severe side effects are worth the risk of taking a medication.
It is interesting to consider the potential side effects of drugs when treating patients with a wide variety of medical conditions. In the case of life-threatening disease, it may be more beneficial for the patient to take the medication despite possible side effects in order to prevent possible death and to improve overall quality of life. But on the other hand, as Dr. Chan mentioned, for a condition which is not life threatening, such as acne or psoriasis, it may be more difficult to justify risking severe side effects during treatment. It is also important to remember that every patient has a different reaction to these drugs which have standard chemical and biological makeup. Therefore, even if scientists and pharmacologists tailored the drugs chemically to prevent most side effects, those alterations could cause adverse effects in some patients and not in others. It is difficult to standardize drugs in order to increase effectiveness and decrease risk.
ReplyDeleteThe choice to take a drug despite its side effects should be left up to the discretion of the patient, but that decision may only be made with full knowledge of the drug and its potential risks. If the quality of life is severely affected by the side effects, then it might be worth considering delaying treatment to see if the condition can subside on its own. But depending on how the physician presents the situation to the patient, and what kind of condition is being treated, the patient may choose to take the medication anyway. It's really a question of weighing the benefits and the risks, while considering effectiveness of the drug and overall potential for the patient's condition to subside with that drug.
I agree with Theresa and I believe with time and research of drugs and understanding its chemical and biological components we will inevitably find a way to reduce or eliminate side effects.
ReplyDeleteI also believe Divya made a profound point in working towards finding ways to "mitigate" the side effects of drugs.
I can't help but dive in a slippery slope of taking medicine to cure an illness but take more drugs to combat certain side effects the medicine has. With this in mind, I would rather not debate about the pros and cons of a drug for its intended effect but rather discuss how scientists are approaching the problem of eliminating side effects.
The future of medicine, in my opinion, is to reduce risk of adverse effects and amplify or haste potency of its intended healing effects.
I had the same initial reaction as Sofia—I did not know such serious side effects could exist. There is no doubt that I would rather not take medication for a non-life threatening illness if the side effects were that severe. Depending on the side effect, they can be uncomfortable and interfere with every day habits. For example, I was prescribed a new medication during high school. My doctor was testing different doses to see which one worked for me. When we reached too high of a dose, my heart raced, I would not eat and became very emotional. My mom immediately called the doctor and I was taken off that dose right away. Side effects like that are just not worth it.
ReplyDeleteGoing off of that, we should not have to get used to adverse side effects. They can be horrible to live with. It is why some cancer patients request to stop chemotherapy, it is why sometimes schizophrenics refuse to take their medication. If the side effects cause enough harm to outweigh the benefits, than the medication is not so great. Life needs to be worth living. Of course, in certain life threatening situations, I would consider the situation and then decide my course of treatment. But if taking acne medication caused me to not have control of my body, I would certainly opt out.
Hopefully there will be advancements in medicine that will reduce the number of side effects of certain drugs, such as drugs without side effects or other drugs will be created that get rid of side effects. Until then, I’d rather not deal with the side effects.
The topic of drugs and their effects is very intriguing to me because so many factors influence our response to a drug. As Nicole mentioned, her personal experience with a particular medication varied based on the dosage that she was supplied. She underwent a trial-and-error type process in order to determine the best dosage with the least adverse effects. Everyone’s body handles medications differently and although, pharmacologists may be able to predict certain side effects due to chemical or biological features, the .1% of our genetic material that makes us unique also makes it impossible to know all of the potential side effects of a drug. Our genetic variation therefore makes standardizing drugs very difficult.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I think that it is crucial to understand all of the possible side effects that can be determined prior to the use of drugs. A doctor should match a drug type, brand, and dosage to a patient individually to minimize the risk of adverse effects. In addition, a patient should be informed of the known side effects and warned that other effects are possible. The patient can then weigh the benefits and risks before deciding whether or not to take a drug.
I believe that dealing with side effects must be considered on a disease-to-disease basis. One must take into account the opportunity cost of taking a medication with side effects versus not taking the medication at all. For example, if there were a medication for coronary heart disease that also caused a loss of hunger as a side effect, it would be in one's best interest to take the medication. On the contrary, I would be less inclined to take a medication knowing that there is a more severe side effect such as Buccoglossal Syndrome.
ReplyDeleteI can also speak on the topic of acne, as I chose to get rid of mine by taking the medication Accutane. Although there was the risk of severe side effects, I recieved monthly blood exams to make sure everything was going smoothly with the medication. I still did experience annoying side effects such as very dry skin, nosebleeds, and chapped lips, but looking back I feel that the end (getting rid of my acne) justified the means (side effects). If proper precautions are put in place to monitor the effects of the medication, then I do believe in taking drugs for non-threatening disorders such as acne.
I think side effects are something we have to get used to, as more and more diseases are medications for those diseases are developed because every drug effects everyone differently. I think that side-effects are unavoidable with such complex medications and diseases. The human body is such a complex structure, and complexities influence the response to the drug (good or bad). Everyone has a different genetic makeup, therefore having such variations makes standardizing drugs for curing diseases is hard.
ReplyDeleteI think being aware of the side-effects and catching them at the first sign of onset is important. Depending on the condition you have, I think that taking drugs to help cure it is important if the negative effects from the condition/disease outweighs the negative effects from the drugs.
Side effects caused by drugs are something we are all somewhat familiar with in this day and age. It’s impossible to avoid advertisements for various medications that are accompanied by a lengthy list of possible side effects. Drugs as common as Advil can have adverse effects depending on who is taking them. When deciding whether or not taking a given medication is worth the risk of side effects depends on the severity of the disease or issue being treated, the length of treatment necessary and the health of the person taking it. If the disease severely impacted my life I would definitely be more willing to overlook possible side effects. Another factor that needs to be taken into account is the relative newness of a given medication. New medications are constantly being approved for our use but that means that all of the side effects might not be fully understood. I personally would be cautious about taking any newly approved medications. Over time I think side effects will decrease as we learn more about how medications work with our genes.
ReplyDeleteI think Sofia got to the heart of the issue in her comment above when she asked "Does the good of the drug outweigh the bad of the side effects?" This is pointing to an answer that is based off each individual situation. If the potential side effect is a disease much worse then the one initially being treating then i say no, it is not worth it. However, if the side effect is mild in comparison to the initial treatment then I think the scale tilts to the other side. With this being said, there are some people who value different things to different amounts.
ReplyDeleteFor example, I had a friend who saw her acne as such a hinderance on all aspects of her life that she would go to any extent to treat it. She was convinced that if her acne wasn't in the way then she would be offered more job opportunities, have more self confidence, and overall a better life quality. After many topical medicines she decided to go beyond the epidermis and take the oral acutane medicine. This drug is undeniably scary. She had to go through blood tests every 3 weeks, use 2 forms of contraception to ensure the prevention of pregnancy, and fulfill a set of online questions each month as well as monthly doctor visits. The side effect is not only a risk of crohns and various GI tract complications,but if the patient were to get pregnant on the medicine the kid would be born with countless, sometimes deadly, deformities. To her, these were scary but worth it. In this situation it really boils down to personal preference. However, the medicine was so highly and frequently regulated by the dermatologist that if an issue had began to arise it would have been caught early on and the medicine terminated.
Therefore, in my opinion the answer is two-fold. First, If the affected person feels the treatment of a medicine outweighs the side effects then it is in his/her best interest to pursue the prescription. Secondly, in both situations, wether the side effects are mild or very extreme, blood tests and close observation should be administered by doctors on a frequent basis. With personal values being monitored by professional care I think people will be able to make a wise and safe decision.
Side effects are the thorn in our side when it comes to finding medication for tons of diseases. Diseases we never thought could have a cure do and diseases we thought never had medications to help relieve the symptoms are being found but with the attached horrible side effects that react differently with everyone. Just when we thought we could help, side effects make it even harder. I believe that it all depends on the disease and the severity of the side effects. If I had acne and the medication I was taking gave grave side effects then I would deal with the acne, however; if diagnosed with something severe such as HIV I might take whatever I could to possibly get rid of or help cure HIV. Side effects are hard to determine because they react differently in everyone's body. With new medications being found for diseases we didn't think could have a cure, the side effects could be worth it, as long as they aren't as bad as the disease it self. Before this article I was aware that with medications come side effects however I didn't realize how severe side effects can be and when they get that bad, that's when we need to take into account, if the medication is worth it.
ReplyDeleteAt this point, I am not sure where I stand with whether or not side effects are something we have to get used to. There are some diseases where the medication is so extremely necessary that it is worth it to suffer through the side effects in order to improve quality of life later on. Examples being chemotherapy for cancer patients, and the array of daily medications that HIV/AIDS patients take. However, with non-life threatening disorders such as acne, I think that it really depends on personal opinion on whether the medication is worth the severe side effects. As others have discussed, side effects can be caused by many different factors, and most can be reduced through trial and error. For example, my dad takes medication daily to reduce his cholesterol levels. When he first started taking the medication, he began to experience muscle weakness and extreme tiredness, both of which are side effects of the medication. As he began to notice these symptoms, he started to work with his doctor to figure out a way to reduce the side effects. He ended up switching medications and reducing the dosage amount, and today he still takes medication, without suffering any side effects, and his cholesterol levels have been reduced significantly.
ReplyDeleteIn conclusion, I think that side effects have to be considered on a case to case basis. Some side effects are worth it due to the benefits of the medication, most side effects of medication for non-threatening disease can be reduced through trial and error, and other side effects (like Bucoglossal Syndrome) would absolutely turn me away from taking a medication. For this reason, I cannot form a definite opinion on whether or not side effects are something that we have to get used to. As more and more medications for more and more diseases are being developed it seems inevitable that side effects would something that we would just have to accept. But I think there is hope that side effects will start to become less severe as we discover more about how medications interact with our genome.
I think SEs of drugs used to treat chronic illnesses are something we ought to get used to. However SEs of drugs used to treat diseases that are non-life threatening can be avoided. If someone were conflicted with acne and the medication used to treat acne caused a series of adverse side effects the patient would have to weigh the benefits of taking the drug. Maybe it would make your skin clear but also make you fat. I always forego medication when possible because usually the SEs that come with medication seem worse than the actual illness being treated. Many drugs on the market these days cause headaches, nausea, and vomiting. I normally am never afflicted with those illnesses but if I am I treat headaches, nausea and vomiting with even more medication. So if I initially started taking a drug to help with eczema and I started experiencing headaches, nausea, and vomiting I would have to take something else! This for me is too tedious and I think I would be better off suffering with rashes on my arms. It is important for patients to be aware of their options and choose treatment accordingly. I always opt for treatment with little to no side effect in the case that I even choose to carry out a treatment. For most mild illnesses they can self-resolve with time and I think that is always the best bet for our bodies.
ReplyDeleteThis also reminds me about an article I read a while ago which explained the significance of why women should not take medication to alleviate cramps. In holistic medicine women prepare their whole adult lives to deal with the pain of pregnancy through monthly doses of the pain of cramps. Nevertheless I am sure our monthly cramps aren't nearly as painful as childbirth but I always think of this theory and try to apply it to many things. Everything in our body happens for a reason and some things our body can naturally resolve so why not let it do its job?
I found it really interesting to learn to researchers are looking so in-depth at the biological and chemical components of drugs that cause particular side effects. While I always knew that side effects were a standard part of drug use, I never put much thought into the idea that there is so much work going into trying to identify what is causing the side effects. By identifying the proteins and chemical features that are associated with particular side effects, the scientists who create drugs potentially have the ability to remove those particular components. This option, if attainable, seems to be a much more cost-effective option than devoting further time and resources into developing an entirely new drug that is free of these side effects (but may later be found to have other, serious side effects).
ReplyDeleteHowever, if it is later discovered that the particular component of the drug that was causing the side effect is a vital part of the drug, then the decision has to be made about whether or not the side effect is worth it. I think this depends on many factors, most notably the seriousness of the disease and the seriousness and likelihood of developing the side effect. For serious diseases like cancer or AIDS, it would almost always be worth it to take the medicine, despite the potential side effects that may come along with it. For something non-life threatening like acne, the decision completely depends on the patient. For someone who is suffering from serious acne and it is causing them to feel very self-conscious and depressed, a solution to this problem in the form of a drug that may cause some uncomfortable side effects, such as dry and itchy skin, may be completely worth it. However, if the severity of the side effect outweighs the severity of the initial disorder, then it might not be worth it. However, it is also important to look at how likely it is that you will develop the side effect. After looking at the side effects for some medications that I take, I saw that I have a risk of developing seizures, blood clots, and hallucinations. While these side effects are rather serious, they are also quite rare; therefore, I feel that the benefits of the medicine outweigh the potential risk of developing these rare side effects.
I am not a pharmacist or a doctor, but it seems to me that we will have side effects as long as we take drugs that alter our biochemical reactions. The human body is almost unimaginably complex, and it is unlikely that a drug which alters one chemical pathway will not have any sort of effect somewhere else. This is not to say that development and time can reduce the severity of side effects. As long as there are new drugs being produced, and there always will be, we will have to deal with side effects.
ReplyDeleteConsidering a drug with serious side effects for a non life threatening disorder is a matter of utility. You have to balance the benefits and the costs. There is really no magical formula other than whether you think it is worth it. In the acne example, the decision of whether or not to take a drug with harsh side effects depends upon the severity of the acne and how concerned the person is with their physical appearance. Personally, I would not proceed with a treatment like Acutane because the benefits are far outweighed by the costs.
I think it is interesting that we automatically classify the term "side effect" with a negative connotation before even looking into what the side effects actually are and how frequently they occur among people (there are many severe side effects in most of the medications we consume [even over the counter drugs], these side effects are usually rare). Is it because of this that the term “side effect” has the negativity associated with it? What if side effects of a medication you took were in your favor, would you still take it?
ReplyDeleteImagine that you were a 15-year old girl with terrible acne and that you were slightly overweight. It covered your face, neck, back, etc and eventually you began to get teased and bullied at school because of your appearance. What if your doctor recommended a medication that would significantly reduce your acne and there was only one side effect- weight loss. Would you decide to take it? To a 15 year old girl, or anyone for that matter who struggled with acne and weight problems, this drug would sounds appealing. In this case, the one side effect works to the girl’s advantage. However, in most cases, if someone is taking a drug, the side effects can range from mild to severe and life threatening, just as their reasons for consuming the medication in the first place (acne, high blood pressure, malaria, etc).
If side effects can have this large of a range and impact on people, then why don’t TV commercials and ads in magazine/newspapers highlight the side effects? Is it because there are just so many side effects that can effect some but not others (meaning that there is no guarantee that this particular side effect will impact you) or is it that they are hoping that the person viewing the ad will focus on what they highlight (reducing hypertension, pain relief, reducing acne, etc).
As the sciences and technology continue to advance, I have hopes that side effects will be reduced or eliminated. I think the research that Aloy and Duran are doing is incredible; doing this allows people to know that they are safe when consuming the drugs that they need for a particular disease or disorder. As mentioned above, it is always important to be aware and knowledgeable of the potential side effects.
I think it's fascinating that IRB Barcelona is actually taking on such a project as this. The information they are discovering is extremely important to everyone who has ever been on, or will be on, medication. As mentioned earlier by other people, the side effects that are associated with some medicines are serious disorders that probably need medicine on their own. It is imperative that doctors and scientists know the biological and chemical origins of the various SE's so that they can make other medications that alleviate some of the intensity of the SE's.
ReplyDeleteI do think that SE's are something that we do need to get used to as more and more medicines are produced, but I also believe that the SE's should be of minute intensity. Just as everything else in life, medicines will most likely never be perfect, but the whole point of medicine is to heal people, not to make them suffer other discomforts through its SE's.
If I did have take to medication with severe SE's for something like acne, then I would definitely pass on the medication and try to clear my acne through other means. I would not take any medication in which the negatives outweigh the positives; something that holds true for every decision one makes in life. If, on the other hand, SE's of medication for cancer including a cold, or mildly sweaty palms, then I would absolutely take the medication.
I think it's important to weigh the positives against the negatives and act on whichever leaves you with more positives.
I find Jenna's argument to be a very intriguing one, and I agree with most of what she has to say. Side effects are definitely generally looked upon in a negative manner. This is not for a bad reason though because some of them can be very dangerous and potentially life-threatening. I understand why people would accept these side effects though. If I had to take medicine that caused bad side effects that were treatable by other types of medicine, it would be acceptable if it was a choice between life and death. With this I definitely agree with Sam, and think that you have to weigh the negatives and positives. Would you want to get rid of whatever disease you want treated even though the side effects are bad, but potentially treatable? Or would the side effects be too much for you to handle, and the treatment not worth the trouble?
ReplyDeleteAs far as TV commercials, I think that a lot of new medicines give appropriate warnings about side effects. I can remember some commercials that spend about half of the air time describing commercials. One of these is the commercial for Abilify, which is used for depression. In this specific case they spend more time discussing the side effects than they do on the actual gains that people may have.
I think that in the future there will be more advances in developing medicines that can treat diseases with fewer and less detrimental side effects. This study is providing pharmaceutical companies with a lot of information that they can use and maybe we will even see some trials in the near future that feature types of medicine with fewer side effects. This could very well be in the distant future, but the study is definitely giving some hope to people that currently struggle with horrible side effects.
I think that if we have a condition that is bad enough that we want to treat it with medicine, side effects are something that we have to get used to and deal with. Many of the minor side effects are very easy to deal with and most of them don’t even end up occurring (to the majority of people). Depending on how extreme the side effects are, the patient taking the medication needs to be the one to decide if they are worth what the drug is fixing. Are the side effects affecting their life more than the disease is? If so, it’s time to find a new drug or deal with the disease in its pure form.
ReplyDeletePeople sometimes take drugs for minor things that others on medications deal with everyday due to side effects. For instance, someone may want to be put on permanent medication to avoid headaches. Others, however, deal with more serious disorders where headaches or even migraines are the side effects and just have to deal with them, because it is quite worse than what they could be dealing with. However, side effects of some medicine or treatments, most often the life threatening conditions, are truly terrible side effects and may require medicine for both the disease and the side effects.
Ultimately, side effects should be treated and looked at in a case-to-case basis. Some people are more sensitive than others and may be affected more by certain SEs than others and therefore should do what they can to make themselves comfortable.
I found it interesting that the side effects of certain drugs can ultimately lead to syndromes and other illnesses such as the example of Buccoglossal. I hadn’t known that drugs with that severe of a side effect would still be allowed for prescription.
ReplyDeleteIt is hard to say what I would do about a non-life threatening disorder. I feel that for non-life threatening disorders, the side effect should not have to be as severe as a side effect from a medication that would be taken for a more serious illness. For example, the side effects of a medication for treating acne should not need to be so severe. There might be a few minor effects, that will most likely die down over time. In that case, I think it would be worth it to suffer for a few weeks in order to treat the problem, but be cautious that the side effects are lessening over time. If not, then I would probably stop the medicine. If we are talking about more severe side effects for a non-life threatening issue such as acne, I would have to evaluate the situation. If the condition was something truly bothering me on an every day scale, I might decide to try the medicine and see how it interacts with my body. It is important to keep in mind that everyone has different reactions to medications, and just because someone else has a side effect, minor or serious, does not mean that you will. I don’t think it is a bad idea to test out the drug over a short period of time; generally a long term side effect is due to long time exposure.
I think it is a toss-up depending on how serious the side effects are and what condition you're in. If you are facing a more life threatening disease then side effects may not even be a problem if your disease is the worst option to live through every day. If you take acne medication and it gives you severe side effects, why would you even bother to take the medication if you willl be in a worse situation than you were in before? I would rather let the condition wear off if possible. I think it really comes down to what you are willing to sacrifice which can differ from person to person. Would I prefer to live with my condition every day or be rid of my condition but live with possibly worse conditions which are these side effects such as yellow vision or involuntary movement of my body. I definitely do not agree that side effects are something we should "get used to," but if there was no other way then it comes down to deciding which is worse for my health. Considering how science and medicine is always changing and advancing, they should continue to focus on preventing side effects.
ReplyDeleteMany students have discussed acne, and that they would opt not to take any medication that would produce side effects for something so minuscule of a health problem. In some sense, I agree. However, in middle school and in high school, I opted to take Accutane (http://www.drugs.com/accutane.html), much like Andrew Berry discussed in an earlier post , and faced some terrible side effects, including incredibly dry skin, severe mood swings, and lengthy bloody noses. I was on the drug for over six months, but in the end, it did cure the acne that I saw as a terrible social stigma that was impeding me from enjoying my life. Now, 7 years later, I can feel thankful that I am confident in my skin and the way I appear, and those terrible side effects are a distant memory. While I'm not sure how my skin would look now if I had never taken Accutane, I am certain that the drug contributed at least slightly to my overall reduction of acne.
ReplyDeleteI believe that side effects are a necessary evil, that like Professor Chan said, may never be truly prevented in our life time. Patients need to certainly take side effects seriously, but they must always be able to weigh the costs and benefits to the reduction of the ailment, versus the unpleasantness of the side effects. Some students have mentioned chemotherapy, which is an extreme but appropriate example. If a patient had a large chance of survival by undergoing a few sessions of chemotherapy, but was nervous about the physical, emotional, and mental side effects that chemotherapy would bring, many would question their decision if they decided not to pursue the treatment.
In the end, it is the patient and the patient alone who needs to decide whether to pursue treatment. But it is certainly appropriate for a patient's doctor to take it upon themselves to explain each side effect thoroughly, and to help the patient gauge the significance of each side effect. In a perfect world, counseling would be always be an option available to each patient.
I'm disturbed by my discovery from the article that adverse side effects are one of the main causes of hospital admission, and I'm not quite sure how we can fix that. I suppose that our already lengthy scientific process of getting drugs approved could be lengthened to more effectively study side effects, but in most cases that would mean adding decades and decades onto trial periods before drugs were put onto the market. And that would be incredibly harmful, as well.
The concept of SEs is something that is extremely hard to avoid. More and more commercials are aired on television and other media outlets that try to sell the concept of all sorts of drugs. Commercials have to include SEs, and in some advertisements the list of side effects is almost as long as the commercial itself. It’s somewhat comical, and with the pace that the SEs are addressed and the familiarity with the list to end commercials it is usually brushed off. One thing that continues to surprise me is the amount of commercials who’s drug is cited with a side effect that might cause new or worsening forms of the disease/condition that it is supposed to treat. Also, as a few people have already said, the concept of needing to take additional drugs in order to combat the SEs caused by other, essential drugs makes me cringe.
ReplyDeleteI never really thought of the vastness of SEs that are known to be caused by drugs, and the concept of a “disease” being caused by a drug meant to deal with another ailment is quite shocking. I guess that in this day and age when medications are available for everything from acne to HIV/AIDS each person must weigh the pros and cons of taking drugs versus playing the cards they are dealt so to speak. Personally, I don’t think that acne is something that warrants a laundry list of side effects so I would probably forgo the “treatment”. Of course, everybody has a different point of view and everyone values things differently. For the time being, the decision comes down to; what would you rather, continue on the track you’re on, or risk another list of SEs for the possible relief of the issue at hand.
The idea that certain proteins are being found to be causative of SEs is exciting because that could lead to the exclusion of such proteins, and a lesser relevance of SEs or even taking them completely out of the equation. Of course, this is a long way away, but it gives us something to strive for, and the hope of it being a reality somewhere down the road.
I found this article very interesting because I always thought that if a drug had unwanted side effect one would have to switch to a different drug. The method of studying proteins and chemical features associated with side effects could be a very effective way of decreasing the side effects of a drug rather than investing in the creation of an entirely new drug.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading the prompt, I automatically thought of an uncle of mine. He is a smoker and his doctor recommended a smoking cessation drug, which had just been introduced on the market. His doctor told him there would probably be side effects, but the side effects of smoking are worse. In that scenario the effects of continued smoking were clear, but the side effects of the drug were not. He tried the drug for about a week and although the urge to smoke greatly decreased, he was having trouble sleeping and other effects. It took about a week for him and his family to realize the drug was changing his personality. He stopped taking the drug because although it was helping him quit smoking, it was ruining his personal life. Later there it was announce that another side effect of this drug is depression and suicidal thoughts. This might be an extreme example, but it gives an example of when a person cannot just put up with the side effects. Putting up with side effects in this case could lead to a change in character or even suicide, which is not worth it. By researching associated proteins and chemical features, one could improve this drug and decrease the side effects.
This is a very interesting topic to me because, like last weeks topic, it is not black and white. It is difficult to pick a side absolutely. Growing up, my family hardly ever used drugs of any kind. Looking in our medicine cabinet you might find a bottle of rarely used Advil, but that's about it. The first time I had NyQuil was in college, as was the first time I ever took allergy medications. I have a habit of saying no to Advil unless my pain is severe. In general, drugs are my last resort in any situation. Based on this history I have a pretty biased opinion about drugs in general. I think they are immensely overused and the side effects are more often than not more trouble than they are worth.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I do think there is a place in our society for drugs. I think if a drug can save a person's life or seriously improve their quality of life, it should by all means be used. SE of any drug need to be carefully studied by both the physician and the patient, but there are certainly times when we just need to get used to SE and accept them as the cost of curing some other ailment.
It is drugs that are used for convenience that I think are an unnecessary cause of other diseases and problems. In the case of acne, which can of course be traumatic in some situations but not life threatening, I think the side effects of sever headaches, nausea, and blurred vision (among other things) are not worth the benefits. I think there are many other routes that can be taken first, for example changes in the individuals diet, that will cause less unwanted effects. I think drugs with negative side effects become a problem when they are used because people want to take the easy way around a problem.
In terms of the research being done to learn more about the chemical aspects associated with drugs and their side effects, I think this is very exciting. I think it would be amazing if we are able to learn enough to be able to administer life saving and altering drugs without the negative side effects, or at least with less negative side effects. I believe it is all very far in the future but it is cool to see we are taking steps in that direction. In the meantime we have to learn to educate ourselves on side effects in order to make educated decisions on which drugs are worth the side effects they come along with.
I agree with many of my classmates above. As technology and research gets better, we will be able to reduce the number of side effects caused by drugs. However, the human body is incredibly complex and each individual may develop a different side effect while using the same drug. Therefore, I do not think it is possible to completely eradicate side effects. The article shows that scientists are making progress, but it requires multidisciplinary expertise.
ReplyDeleteI personally did not have trouble with acne. However, I still would not take acne medication if I knew the drug had severe side effects. I would only take drugs with adverse side effects if I had life threatening conditions such as HIV or cancer. I believe that taking too much medication is unhealthy and should be used as a last resort.
Although the field of biomedical technology has improved exponentially within the last decade, there needs to be more focus on the harms associated with taking medicine that can produce severe side effects. However, to me it all makes sense in the simple statement of "no pain, no gain".
ReplyDeleteWhen patients undergo chemotherapy in order to interfere and possible halt the cancerous tumors in their body, their body undergoes an extreme amount of stress including, but not limited to: fatigue, infection, nausea and vomiting, and lots of pain. The chemotherapy, although almost weakening their body, is helping destroy the tumors/cells that are killing the body. Chemotherapy can take a toll on the body however if patients can overcome the long list of side effects, their body will soon recover and hopefully be cancer free.
As a result, if the side effects of the medicine does not outweigh the harms of the disease, I feel that it is acceptable to undergo the medication. That is also the reason why doctors have to inform their patients of prescribed medication because the side effects are different for each person in severity and choice. When taking the acne medication creates a more damaging and longer lasting effect, the patient may choose to stop the dosage and ask for a different medication. However, if the side effects are not severe, the patient may continue on with their medication. In the end, it's all relative to the patient and how their body reacts to the medicine.
It is clear from many of the previous blog posts that many of us agree that the medical/science community needs to continue working to alleviate the side effects of pharmaceuticals. I agree with this idea and I think we absolutely avoid settling for "good enough." One of the first ideas that came to mind when I read this article had to do with narrative medicine and patient advocacy. I believe that as Public Health/Medical students, we should work to help people continue "their story" even when that involves sickness. This is a basic tenant of narrative medicine and debilitating side effects from pharmaceuticals are often at play when a patient has difficulty accepting and fighting their disease and thus continuing their story. For example, a patient with cancer who was previously active, healthy, and independent will likely have a difficult time adjusting to being bedridden with the effects of chemotherapy as it does not work in the story they have been telling. That is not to say that the cancer will not have its own impact on their quality of life, but the effects of chemotherapy are often more intense and have a quick onset compared to the decline associated with cancer. I think it is important to question what we can do to help patients deal with their disease and the intense side effects from some drugs may hinder out ability. The genetic and chemical sequencing mentioned in the article both provide glimmers of hope for a future where we can help patients create their own story without letting their disease create it for them.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, this issue is a matter of personal preference. Depending on the severity of the disease, a patient might chose to endure painful and complicated side effects to improve their quality of life or even prolong it. The spectrum of conditions and diseases can range from minor to life threatening, and the patient must sort through the pros and cons to decide for themselves what the best option is. In the case of a minor condition like acne, it is ridiculous for a patient to refuse treatment because they think they might suffer from the side effects. Since everyone reacts differently to medications, there is no harm in trying, especially since a patient can simply stop taking the medications if the side effects are unpleasant.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the bigger questions arise when a patient has a more serious and possibly life threatening disease. Take cancer for example. As a patient who is very ill, would you want to let the disease run its course, or intervene with chemotherapy? Again, this reverts back to personal choice and what you would deem an acceptable quality of life. Would you rather live the rest of your life slowly declining, or live with the detrimental side effects of chemotherapy, feeling so weak that you cannot do the things you enjoy doing? Personally, I feel that the future of medicine should focus more on the side effects connected to treatments of serious conditions. Therefore, patients won’t find themselves having to make such decisions that will have an enormous effect on their quality of life.
Just as every decision has a consequence I believe every medicine will always have some sort of side effect. This is a fact that will need to be accepted and will continue to hold true. Unfortunately side effects usually negative and produce unwanted and sometimes dangerous symptoms. As stated in the article “Understanding and Prevention of Side Effects Caused by Drugs,” there are “1,600 known side effects (SEs) produced by drugs.” This is an enormous amount, with some effects being involuntary body movements and having predominantly yellow vision. One can see how the number and range of side effects would deter a person from taking a medicine.
ReplyDeletePersonally, if to be treated for a non-life-threatening disease with a medicine of known side effects, I would choose not to take the medicine. Decisions usually weigh the benefits versus the costs and this act of taking a medicine is just that- a decision. Thus benefits and costs need to be analyzed and in this case, with the disease being non-life-threatening, I can see the possible risks of side effects being more costly.
However, with the Institute for Research in Biomedicine Barcelona completing a study of the molecular causes of these side effects, help and prevention seems to be a possibility. The Institute’s study, along with now known knowledge of the human genome, could potentially be used to test an individual to see if he or she would have side effects to a certain medication. If this is the case, then I would most likely participate and see if I have any markers for side effects to different medicines. With regard to non-life-threatening diseases, I would still opt to not take a medicine due to the possible side effects along with the probable high finances of having my genome tested. With life-threatening diseases my decision would most likely be to take the medicine anyways no matter the side effects.
When the side effects of a medication causes an individual's health to regress behind their state of health and projected future state of health before taking the medication then use of the medication is not justified. If by taking acne medicine such as isotretinoin one experiences SEs such as pancreatitis, hepatitis, and psychosis then use of such medication is not justified in light of alternative medications with less severe side effects, especially when taking into consideration the benign nature of acne. With serious conditions and diseases, such as HIV and cancer and their recommended treatment with antiretrovirals and chemotherapy, serious SEs can also occur. However, the nature of these diseases often ends in death or serious disability if left untreated. Provided that the methods of treatment do not diminish the quality of life of the individual to a lower status when they had the disease then I would suggest taking the medication. However, there are instances when such treatment would significantly reduce the quality of life of an individual compared to when they did not have the disease or disorder. It may be that the only treatment to preserve life leaves the individual in a vegetative state, loss of conscious mental functions, or severe disability. In these cases I believe that the individual has the right to refuse treatment and life the remainder of their life with their disease or disorder if they do not desire to live with the such extreme adverse side effects.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I believe the work of these scientists is extraordinary and ambitious, among other things, I also believe it is far from complete. Not only is it incomplete in the sense that chemical explanations “may” fill in the gaps of an unfinished biological picture (as noted in the article), but also because the combinations of certain drugs and their side effects remain unexplored. This article makes it seem as simple as one drug equals SEs X, Y, and Z, which is usually not the case. Also, like some classmates have already mentioned, SEs can vary on a person-by-person basis. I do not mean to say that this project is aimless; I strongly believe it will play an important role in educating health care professionals in a way that will allow them to provide competent care and complete information. However, I believe there is much to be explored before this project can be considered complete and used in a clinical setting. Although we are not there yet, I don’t think it is impossible that one day we will have the biological and chemical understanding and technology to eradicate SEs.
ReplyDeleteMany of my peers have said that they would abstain from using drugs with severe SEs unless it was to treat a life threatening condition. I don’t hold this view. Personally, depending on what the non-life threatening disorder was, I might consider drugs with severe side effects. For example, in the case of acne, I would consider taking harsh drugs because our culture places a lot of emphasis on being aesthetically pleasing and disorders that negatively affect our social interactions with our environment can be detrimental to our mental health. Following this unfortunate truth about our culture, I don’t find it unimaginable that someone would take harsh drugs to treat acne.
Obviously, if the side effects of a drug are more serious than the disease or condition that the drug treats then the drug should not be taken. If the side effects are less serious than the disease, then the drug should be taken. This is not a difficult outlook to have. The nuance lies in what the patient prefers to live with, a choice that is different for everybody.
ReplyDeleteThe scientific community’s ability to identify and prevent side effects is another matter. Often, it is nearly impossible to determine all side effects, particularly for psychiatric medications. However, the clear, adverse side effects are there for observation and the Catalan Institute of Research and Advanced Studies seems to have a grasp on it. A vast undertaking would be to determine specific interactions with the drugs in focus and SNP’s that lead to adverse effects. This may be necessary for some side effects if research shows that only certain subjects are susceptible to them.
First, I would consider what damage these side effects have on my normative daily functioning. If the consequences of treating one ailment lead me to a state of health that is just as bad, or even worse than my original state, then the initial treatment would not be worth it. I will have gained nothing, and instead only created another problem to deal with. On the other hand, if the side effects are minimal and do not cause a noticeably interruptive component to my everyday functioning, I would be less likely to cast aside the treatment and forego it entirely. For example, in the case of acne treatment, if I had an over-the-counter or prescribed topical medication that caused excessively dry skin, severe irritation, and chronically dry skin, in my opinion, the medication would be doing more harm than good. In the long term these side effects could lead to the development of even more acne problems. With oral prescriptions, common side effects include nausea, headaches, and hormonal imbalance. In this situation, I would also be more likely to turn down treatment and look for better alternatives.
ReplyDeleteOf course it’s good to have these “alerts” available to drug design experts to minimize potential damage, but I don’t think the consequences are completely avoidable due to the interconnectedness of the human body. Also, more often than not individuals are on more than one medication at a given time, sometimes to counteract the effects of one against the other. Depending on the intensity of the drug and severity of its side effects, side effects are not always something we should “get used to”. They should be analyzed and weighed against the alternative on a case-by-case basis.
This was an interesting article, because I never realized how severe side effects could be. Growing up, I was always sick, constantly taking different medicines. However, the medicines I would take always had risks for side effects, but the side effects were never severe. Because of this, I never put much thought into how severe side effects of drugs could be. I think it will depend on how serious the condition is to decide on if the side effects are worth it. If it is a life-threatening disorder, than a person will just have to deal with the side effects. If it is a non-threatening disorder, than it is up to the person who has to live with the disorder. If I had a serious acne condition, then I would probably take the medicine and deal with the side effects, because I just wouldn’t want bad acne for most of my young-adult life. For now, I think side effects are just something we need to get used to, but who knows, maybe in the future we will not have to deal with any side effects.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very interesting topic for me because it has recently impacted my personal life. I have had issues with Celiac disease/Auto immune issues and many allergic reactions to new foods this past summer. Due to this, I was pretty much on a Benedryl regimen. However, after about a week of taking the drug, multiple times a day, I began having heart palpitations. Of course when it happened, I thought I was having a heart attack. Ever since, I have had many times where my chest feels sore or my heart beat will increase at an unusual rate or even my breathing will be altered because of the pain and beating. Not to worry, my PCP knows all about it.
ReplyDeleteSide effects are very scary things to think about. We (the average consumer) are literally putting foreign substances into our bodies because of a reaction that we are having. We trust the descriptions on the bottle to help us yet we don't realize the harm that one pill could do. I have decided that I am going to try and stay away from taking over the counter medication and try seeking natural alternatives that are "safe". Obviously, there will be a need for a dose of DayQuil down the road, but I am going to try and avoid it as much as I can because of my preexisting issues. It is scary that a little tiny pill can do so much harm. It really makes me think twice before I put anything into system.
I do not believe there will ever be a pill that lacks a side effect. Everyone's body reacts so differently. There is no way that there will be something able to work for everyone.
I think that no matter what, we must always think about how an object (a medicine, a chemical spill, an apple, etc.) will affect our bodies and therefore our health. If we take a medicine, we expect it to have an effect, just as we do if we eat an apple. However, sometimes these medicines, as discussed in the article produce negative or adverse side effects. Using a similar analogy, we eat (an apple) to fulfill our basic needs, but more immediately so we no longer feel hungry. Because of this, we will sometime eat things such as pizza and burritos, which may cause our stomachs to hurt, thus causing an adverse effect. What can we learn? We may learn to not eat these foods, or we may learn that we must deal with these side effects when we do eat them. However, the choice is there. Using medication as the example, we must weigh the potential harms and benefits of taking a certain medication. If I have breast cancer, I must weigh the options of undergoing chemotherapy or not. Do the benefits outweigh the risks? Obviously many other factors play into such serious decisions. Looking at something more commonplace, such as taking an ibuprofen to help reduce swelling, which occurs every time I run, I must think of the long term risks compared to the short term benefits. All of these play a role in the consumer choice to take a medicine and for physician decision making in prescribing and recommending medicines to their patients. In my opinion, I tend to be more critical towards a medication’s risks and underestimate their benefits. This is referring to when I personally take a medicine. This could largely be due to the fact that I am a relatively healthy young adult who does not have any chronic conditions. I have also in the past been addicted to opioids after serious knee injuries and would never want to be in a similar situation again even for something as small as becoming “dependent” on ibuprofen after running. Because of these two main factors, I err on the side of not taking medications. However, we are all different (at least by .01%) and have many difference factors into the type of decision making. These factors on which we must base our decisions, however, leads to new opportunities, as discussed in the article. Researchers and drug developers can look into ways new medicines can be produced to minimize to the maximum amount the side effects a drug has. As the article points out we can look at how biology and chemistry affect the drugs. I would say, “How does epigenetics play a role?”
ReplyDeleteThis subject is difficult for me to form an opinion on because though I have taken many medicines throughout my life, mostly over-the-counter or antibiotics, I have never suffered from any side effects that I have noticed. This has, therefore, made me less reluctant to try new medicines for any condition that call s for it, even if the condition is not that severe. For example, I was on antibiotics for acne for about 2 years and never suffered any side effects. The antibiotics helped but did not completely solve the problem so acutane was suggested. I chose not to go out because of how severe the side effects are. This case is unique though because there's not always a lesser version of a medication to choose. Acne is not life-threatening so I had the option to choose to take the medicine or not. However, if I was taking medicine to lower my cholesterol because I was at high risk of having a heart attack, I would take a drug that had side effects that might slightly lower the quality of my life. I think the line to draw is when the drug lowers the quality of your life more than suffering from what the drug is trying to correct.
ReplyDeleteAs more diseases surface, technology is also advancing, and an understanding of the human body is also expanding. Side effects of major drugs are something that people today are already used to, but future advancements that will prevent drugs from having side effects, or having minimal side effects are what people will have to get used to. I believe that the side effects people are experiencing today will be a trivial matter later on in the future. Either that or nothing will change and people will carry on taking drugs that have side effects anyway.
ReplyDeleteThe severity of the side effects and how willing a person is to endure it is completely up to the individual. Even though science is proving that certain chemical and biological are triggers for these side effects, it cannot definitively be determined until a person has taken the drug. Whether a person wants to put up with the side effects for the end results is up to the individual. I know personally, I had taken antibiotics as a teenager for my acne, but it made me incredibly nauseous. Knowing that there were other methods to treat my acne with less severe side effects, I decided to stop taking the antibiotics because my benefits did not outweigh the risks. Acne also is not detrimental to my health (only my social life) so I didn't feel the need to suffer through nausea. For minor cases that aren't life threatening, the side effects are not worth it. Even changing your diet can improve your acne, and that has other benefits and no risks like a healthier lifestyle. However, the will to survive can outweigh the downside of side effects in medicine, then it is worth it, if life is worth it to the individual. If the person believes treatment is futile and the side effects aren't worth it, then that is the individual's call however.
I believe the issue of side effects in medicine really depends on the medical condition, personal preference, available technology and if the pros outweigh the cons. All of these considerations intertwine to ultimately answer the question of "are side effects something that we should get used to?"
ReplyDeleteDepending on the medical condition, some diseases and disorders truly require the medication to be life saving. For example if someone has stage three cancer, going through chemo and certain medications may prove to be extremely difficult but ultimately necessary to be life saving. In this case, an individual may decide that the pro of living outweighs the cons of nausea etc. Furthermore, perhaps chemo is at the for front of technology for their specific condition, and this is the best option. For them, perhaps side effects are unfortunately something they should get used to.
However, there are also other cases when there are a range of different medications available that all have different degrees of side effects. Take birth control for example- a non life saving medication. Millions of girls decide to just "get used to" the side effects of taking the pill- weight gain, hormonal problems, etc. Deciding to take birth control is a personal preference about if the pros outweigh the cons. This is an interesting situation though because there are actually other types of birth control out there with fewer side effects and perhaps even more efficacy- say for example, an IUD. Given that there are other technologies out there and medical advances to deter side effects, this may be an example where people do not just need to get used to side effects. All in all, this is a personal issue that can be seen from many different angles.
Side effects are often a result of some form of drug affecting various parts of the body in addition to it’s primary distinct target. Often when we take drugs to ease a specific problem, a serious of side effects arise as well since we have yet to precisely modify drugs so that they only target certain biological and chemical pathways. Furthermore, biological and chemical pathways differ from person to person and are also influenced by various factors such as environment and a person’s genetic makeup. However, as we are broadening our understanding of genetic makeup and chemical pathways, it is not impossible that we will eventually be able to eliminate side effects of drugs by designing them to properly target only the specific chemical and biological pathways of an individual.
ReplyDeleteFor now, side effects will continue to nuisance us whether they be severe or mild. Whether one wants to put up with side effects is a personal preference. For non-threatening diseases like acne, if the importance of the treatment outweighs the severe side effects for an individual, he and she can choose to take the medication. However for others, often times they may choose not to since the severe side effects is not worth the treatment of a non-threatening disease. It is all a matter of choice for the individual. Hopefully down the line, scientific advancements will allow us to better understand drugs and it’s impact on biological and chemical systems so that we can modify them accordingly and remove the additional side affects we have to deal with today.
Personally, if I had a non-life threatening disorder, I would have to weigh the benefits of taking a drug that would let my daily symptoms subside against the costs of the severe side effects associated with the drug. It would definitely be nice to not have to worry about the challenges that the disorder presents. However, it may not be worth it to acquire a whole new set of potentially severe symptoms that are associated with a new medication. These side effects may be worse to deal with than the original disorder.
ReplyDeleteMaking the choice between whether or not to take the drugs to prevent my non-life threatening disorder from affecting me would definitely depend on how pervasive its symptoms were in my daily life. If the symptoms associated with my non-life threatening disorder were causing significant psychological and emotional stress, as well as physical discomfort, I would strongly consider taking a drug that would help these to subside. However, if the disorder did not dramatically affect my life, I would probably choose to live with it.
For example, I have mild asthma, which I consider a non-life threatening disorder because I have never had an asthma attack or any truly life-threatening symptoms. I developed asthma at a young age, likely because of two bouts of pneumonia that I experienced at ages 4 and 6. Asthma definitely affected me when I was younger. I was quite susceptible to upper respiratory infections, and would battle these infections more frequently than my peers. My colds would also last longer and be more severe than a typical child. Also, if I played sports in a cold environment, I would often be left wheezing and coughing for hours after the physical activity. I did take medication, such as Abuterol, but the only noticeable side effect of that was feeling jittery for ten to thirty minutes after inhaling the drug. This side effect was definitely worth the benefit of letting the asthmatic symptoms subside. It allowed me to breath much more easily.
Once I reached adolescence, my asthma cleared up significantly. Today, it hardly affects me. I only get sick once or twice a year and it hardly ever becomes complicated by asthmatic symptoms. Given my experience with asthma, I do not think that I would have chosen to take a drug that would cause the symptoms to subside if it had strongly associated severe side effects. Having asthma did not affect me negatively enough to warrant taking a drug that would cause extremely severe side effects. And in fact, the disease has definitely worn off with age!
I agree with many of the students who have already posted. I do believe side effects are something we have to get used to unless we make dramatic advances in pharmacogenomics. The article briefly discusses the biological components of side effects. If it's true that most side effects are biological then researchers can make it so that SEs don't affect a person as much. Now if the SE is more like the yellow vision type, where it's a chemical interaction, and not much can be done then there is not much that researchers can do for a patient. As with all technology, I do believe researchers will make far advances in trying to get rid of all negative side effects of certain medications.
ReplyDeleteIt is also up to the doctors, pharmacies, medicine makers, to try to understand the make up of medications better and understand interactions between multiple drugs if they're being prescribed together. As with informed consent, it is the responsibility of the doctor to educate the patient of all possible SEs and allow the patient to understand the pros and cons. If a possible SE is as severe as Buccoglossal Syndrome then a patient may want to evaluate their decision on taking their prescribed medications. If living with a really uncomfortable side effect is better than dying from a life threatening disorder then a patient may want to live with it but it could make for a really difficult life style.
If I had a non life threatening disease like acne I would consider taking drugs to make my acne better because it's a really uncomfortable thing to live with. It affects every aspect of life and could potentially give someone a really bad self image. That's why with the drug accutane female patients are really educated on the tragedy of an unknown pregnancy because it could cause really negative consequences. If it was another kind of non life threatening disease I would educate myself on all possible SEs and see if the pros outweigh the cons. I believe it is also the responsibility of the patient to be proactive about their health and educate themselves on the medications they are taking.
It's interesting that you bring up informed consent in this conversation. I completely agree. I think that in most cases, it should be up to doctors to prescribe medication (versus taking something over-the-counter) and in this way, patients would always be able to talk to doctors about possible SEs or possible alternative methods of treatment.
DeleteEspecially with new medication constantly coming out, patients may have never even heard of such drugs.
Vanessa Merta
ReplyDeleteI do not think that scientists will ever be able to stop all side effects. Every human body reacts differently to different reagents so there is no way that pharmaceutical companies could account for this in the near future. Hopefully, as a patient you would want to improve your quality of life as best that you can, which means you would have to weigh the pros and cons of each drug and their potential side effect. You would think that for diseases like cancer and HIV the benefits of the drugs out weigh the negative side effects. Sometimes though, the life expectancy is so severely shortened by the ailment that the last few months or years are better lived drug-free, as the side effects of chemotherapy or similar drugs have side effects worse than the symptoms of the actual disease. This is a personal decision that patients need to make with their loved ones and doctors. I do not think there is some blanket answer that will make everyone happy. To some people, it may be more important to take the diet drug Orlistat (brand name Alli or Xenical) then to avoid the nasty side effect of loss of bowel control. To me, I’d prefer to be overweight than to deal with the possibility of that side effect, but I cannot speak for the whole population. To some, that may not be as detrimental as being overweight. In such a diverse population, we can expect opinions to change on this topic not only from person to person, but also from drug to drug.
Unfortunately it seems that side effects are here to stay, I mention this not because I don’t believe that it is possible to avoid many of these unwanted effects, but because in the process of developing new treatments it’s impossible to be sure that whatever compound is being used won’t produce adverse reactions in even a small portion of the population prescribed the treatment. The goal of pharmacologists as I see it is not to prevent any side effects from occurring at all, but to minimize the severity and the spread of the side effects which will occur. I think that in the case of drugs which treat non-life-threatening conditions, but have the possibility of severe side effects, each individual patient should first consult their physician to see if they are at an elevated risk for certain side effects before starting a trial round of the medication. In the case of chronic conditions such as depression and bipolar disorder, I would not recommend that anyone avoid taking medication which has been prescribed to them because of concerns over side effects.
ReplyDeleteI think side effects from medication is something that the medical community is always going to deal with. The human body is unique so the effects of the medication will vary from person to person. Scientifically this is a challenge to pharmaceutical companies to try to design a medication that everyone is going to have the same results from. As some of the students already mentioned above, I think you have to weigh the risks and benefits of taking a medication that can have potentially negative side effects - especially if its non-life threatening such as acne (need to consider--are there alternative ways/drugs to cure acne that doesn’t require the intake of medication with potentially negative effects to achieve the results? Is it really something you need take the medication for? etc.). Taking medication is a personal decision that the patient is going to have to make since they’re going to be dealing with the SE’s later. In a public health point of view, the medical community need to inform those patients the potential effects of the drugs and weigh the risks and benefits of it with professional assistance.
ReplyDeleteThe side effects of drugs is an interesting topic because our bodies react to drugs differently and there is still so much we don’t know about how to address these differences. Getting used to side effects should be decided on a situational basis since people have different reactions and tolerances for how they deal with disease and pain. There is a huge difference between dealing with severe side effects for life-threatening conditions and conditions that you can live with. For conditions that you can live with, the side effects from taking a drug may not be worth it. It is important for common side effects to be relayed to a person before they use a drug, and from there they can decide if they would rather deal with the side effects or the pain of their disease. However, there may be some people that are so unhappy with their condition, that they would be willing to deal with the side effects. For these non-life threatening diseases, the choice to take drugs is up to the person. For life-threatening conditions, though side effects may be severe, if they are the only option to keep you alive, taking the drug is worth it. Hopefully, with all the medical advancements being made and the research being done, there will hopefully be a time when drugs can be taken with much reduced side effects. Especially for life-threatening conditions, in which drugs are the only option, we should not have to get used to people dealing with the severe side effects.
ReplyDeleteSide effects (SE) are unavoidable, and as mentioned, I don't think that they're going away in our lifetime. In this sense, I do think SEs are something we just have to get used to. Our bodies can't always fight off sickness on their own, so people are not going to stop using medication. However, I do think it's very important to weigh the benefits of a drug against the possible side effects. For example, whenever there's a commercial for an anti-depressant, the list of possible SEs seems endless. Someone needing this sort of drug should consider the SEs before choosing to take the medicine.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do not think there will be an end to SEs in our lifetime, I think that pharmocogenomics will eventually solve this issue. Currently, scientists can study the chemistry of drugs and how they interract in a biological settings (the human body). Normally, a medicine is made for a specific illness or symptom, and it's up to doctors to prescribe the correct drug based on a patient's symptoms. Or people can sort of self diagnose themselves and choose an over-the-counter drug. But everyone is so different! We can't expect drugs to work the same for everyone. Pharmocogenomics would allow doctors/scientists to look at a specific patient's genetic makeup and choose a drug that would work best for that patient. Catering a drug in this way would possibly eliminate or decrease SEs. If not, maybe looking at someone's genome would allow for drugs to be created specifically for a that person. This should be the case, of course, for serious problems/illnesses.
For non-lifethreatening diseases, I think that it is a matter of choice. Again, this is a situation of weighing benefits against potential costs. Personally, with something like acne I would probably deal with the side effects. Diseases that are visible to others would affect my mental health, because I'd be self-conscious all the time and embarrassed. However, if SEs were severe I wouldn't take the medication. In any case, I think that doctors should be involved in the decision-making process so that patients can make well informed decisions.
I believe that with the strengthening of our understanding of individuals’ genomes and the specific ways an individual’s genetic and physical makeup interact with drugs, side effects can become far less prevalent. This would, however, require that drug trials take into account how the drug in question effects a range of patients with vastly different genetic make ups, instead of simply studying how the drug effects the population on average. This would also require that individuals’ genetic information be available to doctors and pharmacists alike when making drug choices for patients.
ReplyDeleteTaking drugs for a non-life threatening disorder with severe side effect risks is not something I am personally willing to do; for example, in high school, many of my friends took the acne-fighting drug Accutane, but because of the many potential risks I was never wiling to try the drug. Additionally, the use of IUDs to prevent pregnancy is becoming more common among college-age women, but the risks of scarring and infertility, although somewhat rare, are not risks I am willing to take. I am hopeful that a greater understanding of drug interactions with individuals’ genetic make ups will make these side effect risks less prevalent.
Shanika Gilmour
Studying these SE's, in my opinion, is a legitimate field to pursue. We should focus on SE's for those who have no choice but to take certain drugs to maintain a comfortable and functioning lifestyle. If we can alleviate some of the stress and pain associated with missing a pill or dealing with the consequences, we can significantly increase the quality of life for the individual. Prolonged, good-quality life is what I believe the overall goal of medicine is--and although testing SE's may not be a long-term solution, it's attainable and acceptable for this point in time. Quality of life is something we should remember when discussing this topic. To solely prolong life is not a good enough goal for medicine--and studying things like SE's is a practical and applicable field of research to improve quality of life.
ReplyDeleteWe should never be complacent with where we are in any field, and this includes medicine. WIthout the striving for improvement, no progress would be made. And while focusing on something so small as SE's for certain drugs may seem minuscule, it promotes progress toward improved quality of life in the field of medicine. So we should not become used to the SE's, as it is not within the drive of human progress.
I believe that the decision to take drugs with severe SE's should be made on a case-by-case basis. With something like acne, that usually passes with age, I personally don't think it's worth it risk other health complications. That's not to say that in high school, I didn't try every over-the-counter medication I could get my hands on to rid my face of pimples and zits. It's challenging subject for teenagers to face. I believe that advertisers play a big role in driving kids and young adults to feel that they're imperfect with acne. Commercials for products like Pro-Active and Accutane try to make people feel imperfect so that they buy their product, which is an immoral in my eyes. Society shouldn't be influencing something as superficial as acne; especially to the point where a person is willing to put their health on the line.
Truthfully, for kids that go through acne in high school, it can do some good. It can promote seeing the inner good in people, rather than investing so much in looks. It can help kids get in touch with who they are, and who they want to be around. People who do not grow out of it, however, would have to make the decision themselves. They should be allowed to make that decision on their own, without the influence of corporations trying to sell a product. Taking corporate influence out of the equation makes it much more reasonable to make an educated and legitimate decision.
I think side effects of drugs will always be an issue that is unavoidable. Everyone can react differently to different drugs. Some may have severe side effects while others be free of side effects. I don’t think side effects will be eliminated completely even with further medical advancement. We will probably have to get used to side effects regardless. For example acne medication, if the use of the drug causes severe side effects, I might first try the drug to see how my body would react to the drug. If there were no severe side effects then I would still take the drug. Say I don’t react well with the drug that results in severe side effects, then I would then live with the disease and wait for it to wear off with age if possible. I would always find safer or natural alternatives.
ReplyDeleteI agree with many of the comment above. I believe that side effects are always going to be a problem with medications because the human body is so unique and each person can respond differently to a medication depending on his or her genetic makeup, environmental factors, lifestyle habits, etc. However, I do believe that for non-life threatening conditions such as acne, pharmaceutical companies and scientist should be able to create a medication that does not have any severe side effects. For more complicated and serious illnesses, such as cancer, I feel that eliminated side effects will be too difficult. Therefore, I believe that dealing with side effects is a personal choice and depends on how someone will decide on what constitutes an appropriate quality of life. For example, if I was suffering from a terminal illness, and the doctor suggested that I try this experimental medication that would prolong my life a few months, but had the potential to cause severe side effects, I would decline the medication and live the rest of my life with my family and loved ones. On the other hand, if I was suffering from a type of cancer that could be cured from a specific medication, I would take that medication and risk the potential for side effects. In these two situations, I believe it is up to the individual to examine the situation, and weigh the benefits versus the consequences of taking the medication, and see if more good or harm is produced from taking the drug.
ReplyDeleteAs Caroline mentioned, I believe that side effects are just something that we are accustomed to hearing because they have been around with almost every medication that we have ever taken. We often ignore them, but some of the side effects can be serious and potentially life threatening. In addition, some of the drugs that are prescribed, often for managing long term illnesses, have severe side effects that need to be controlled with further drugs. This not only opens the door for more potentially harmful side effects, but it also takes a toll on the liver (which has to go through the process of filtering all of the chemicals into the bloodstream and removing the waste).
ReplyDeleteThe thing about side effects is, although a lot of them sound severe, not everyone will experience them. In fact, it is a very small percentage of people using medications who find themselves suffering from certain side effects. Pharmaceutical companies are just protecting themselves, on a legal standpoint, by listing any and all possible side effects. That being said, I still don’t think that side effects are something that we should just get used to. I agree with Caitlyn’s point that every individual’s genetic makeup has its differences which could cause the body react to the same drugs in completely different ways. However, I feel that researchers like Miquel Duran and Patrick Aloy can make great strides in this area of medicine. By studying the numerous side effects that occur from taking medications, we can understand the different chemical and/or biological effects that the drugs have on our bodies. Once researchers and health care providers have this information, they can come up with new treatment plans involving less harmful drugs that can still treat the patient. In addition, new research can be done to develop newer and safer drugs for us.
This research is fascinating, but the benefits of it are not applicable at the moment, as the studies are still continuing. For now, all we can do is weigh the treatments against the side effects like many of the students have mentioned above. I believe that it really comes down to a case by case basis that depends on the individual. I personally have not suffered with non-life threatening disorders like acne so I would probably pass on the treatments and wait until it goes away. However, I do know people that have waited with no relief. Certain issues, life threatening or not, affect individuals in different ways. Some people may just be fed up with waiting and take the medications, regardless of the severe side effects.
While many prescription medications have been found to effectively treat countless disorders and diseases, other forms of treatment are often available and have been proven to be just as effective. However, because drug therapies generally provide patients’ faster relief from their symptoms and they require less of an investment than other treatment options, such as cognitive behavioral therapy, patients mistakenly view medication as a “quick fix” to their health problems.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I do believe that in certain instances or for some diseases drugs are ultimately the best treatment option, physicians should encourage patients to explore other forms of treatment that are available to them. It is also the responsibility of healthcare providers to inform individuals of possible side effects of any prescription drug they are taking so that patient’s are able to make informed, well-thought-out decisions about their medications. Ultimately, however, patients should have the final say regarding any treatment they wish to receive. Until science has discovered a way to develop drugs without any side effects, the choice to take or not to take prescription drugs should be made by patients on an individual basis.
No matter how hard we work towards producing drugs that to not have side effects, i believe it is something that is inevitable. Of course I believe that if the side effects of the drugs are worse than the condition you are attempting to treat itself, that drug should not be used. There are many side effects to the drugs used for treating AIDS, when it comes to an example like this the side effects are no where near as bad as the disease itself so I see no problem in the use of them.
ReplyDeleteIf a drug can be used to improve someones of life or even save a life, it should be used by all means. When it comes to acne drugs, I do not believe acne is a serious enough problem to take drugs that have sever side effects. Especially because the most common users are high school students who are still developing and do not need to be dealing with intense drugs that have side effects. Drugs should never be used to try and fix a problem quickly, every person reacts differently to drugs and should learn what does and does not work with their body.
When you take a look at the prescription drugs on the market today, what drugs don't have their fair share of side effects? Whether its a drug that helps for a life threatening or non-life threatening disease, there will always be side effects, and the severity of those side effects will vary from person to person. The side effects that come with taking a prescription drug is the risk a person takes to get relief from the disease. Although there is a risk, I do not believe it is something that patients have to get used to, especially for individuals that need to take a certain drug to survive or to carry out day to day functions. For these individuals who do rely on medications to survive, more needs to be done to ensure that these patients suffer from less side effects or ideally no side effects at all. Unless pharmacogenomic technology becomes more prevalent in the distribution of prescription drugs, there will always be individuals that will be severely effected by adverse effects to medications.Personally, if I had a non-life threatening disease I would prefer not to take medications that had severe side effects and seek other therapeutic methods. I would however take a medication with severe side effects for a non-life threatening disease that caused me to be in so much pain that day to day functions were difficult. For many who have exhausted alternate options to medications with no success, it may seem like taking medications that have severe side effects may be the only option to get relief.
ReplyDeleteWhen you take a look at the prescription drugs on the market today, what drugs don't have their fair share of side effects? Whether its a drug that helps for a life threatening or non-life threatening disease, there will always be side effects, and the severity of those side effects will vary from person to person. The side effects that come with taking a prescription drug is the risk a person takes to get relief from the disease. Although there is a risk, I do not believe it is something that patients have to get used to, especially for individuals that need to take a certain drug to survive or to carry out day to day functions. For these individuals who do rely on medications to survive, more needs to be done to ensure that these patients suffer from less side effects or ideally no side effects at all. Unless pharmacogenomic technology becomes more prevalent in the distribution of prescription drugs, there will always be individuals that will be severely effected by adverse effects to medications.Personally, if I had a non-life threatening disease I would prefer not to take medications that had severe side effects and seek other therapeutic methods. I would however take a medication with severe side effects for a non-life threatening disease that caused me to be in so much pain that day to day functions were difficult. For many who have exhausted alternate options to medications with no success, it may seem like taking medications that have severe side effects may be the only option to get relief.
ReplyDeleteSide effects are something we definitely have to get use to. Majority of the drugs we use are antibiotics. From my class in Microbiology, I learned that antibiotics are extracts of the metabolic chemical release of microorganisms. These chemicals either give way for further microorganism growth or inhibition. But nevertheless these chemicals will always change the environment. In this case of antibiotics, we have specifically looked to inhibiting the growth of harmful bacteria. But no matter what, that will always come with a resulting action. The antibiotic works by changing the environment that the bacteria has spread to thus killing them off by inhibiting their metabolic processes or microorganic cell structures.
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion I would live with certain diseases (non-life threatening) with out the use of drugs. After a drug is involved there is a chance for the bacteria within your body to adapt to it and thus evolve to an even harder problem to deal with. In the case of Acne, no bacteria are involved but your body will become reliant on the drugs. And if ever you wanted your Acne to dissipate naturally it would be significantly harder to do so with a reliance on drugs.
Like many of the people who commented before me, I had no idea that side effects could be so serious. I've never really taken any serious prescription drugs before, so I've never noticed that such serious side effects were possible. All I knew was what you heard the announcer really fast at the end of an allergy medicine on TV.
ReplyDeleteI don't think side effects are something we should get used to. Granted, there will probably always be some sort of side effect, but I don't think that it's something we should just accept. If anything, we should be working on developing new versions of those medications so that the severity of the side effects is reduced, or even eliminated.
If I had a non life threatening disease such as acne, then I probably wouldn't take heavy prescription drugs such as Accutane. For me, the severity of the side effects (weight gain, depression, mood swings, blurred vision etc) far outweigh the benefits. I'd rather spend my money on over the counter treatments and facial washes that have no side effects, other than maybe drying out your skin. Especially since acne is non life threatening, and it's something that goes away as you get older. It's not worth it in my opinion. However, in cases of life threatening diseases such as cancer, I would definitely opt for treatment, no matter the side effects because my life is in danger. My life takes priority over fear of side effects.
Although I have no evidence, I believe humanity will reach a point where side effects will be eliminated. Perhaps it will come with a new advent in technology, such as improving the human immune system via genetic modification and completely eliminating the need for drugs at all. Either way, side effects are not "something we have to get used to". Scientists are continuously improving on their own medicine. If a drug fails in a particular area, but flourishes in another, scientists will seek to improve the drug and capitalists will seek to sell the better product for profit.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to treating non-life threatening disorders, I maintain the similar point of view that it really depends on 1. the severity of the disorder and 2. the severity of the side-effects. If the disorder were to be severe, I would take drugs to alleviate symptoms if I consider the side-effects worth it. It is impossible to say a sure-fire answer due to the plethora of possibilities.
Research and knowledge on the biological and chemical sources of drug side effects is crucial to the field of medicine and advancing treatments. Although some may believe we don’t have to deal with side effects I believe it is something we face as society. I feel like people have to make a smart and educated decision on what type of medicine they would like depending on side effects. The person taking the medicine should have the autonomy to make the decision regarding the consumption of certain medicines. Drug delivery is always improving and technology is improving, and maybe one day we will not worry about side effects but for now its imperative for certain medications to be distributed for diseases despite the side effects they may cause. Because, like AIDS theses diseases are life threatening and I am sure most patients will rather go through some discomfort in order to stay alive. With that being said, a patient should be informed of the known sideffects that the medicine may have whenever they are prescribed to them . But when it comes to consumer product , personal responsibility is at the fore front because you are willing to take the responsibility of getting that side effect.
ReplyDelete[Pretty sure my comment posted... but I don't see it. Sorry if this is a duplicate!]
ReplyDeleteSide effects can be extremely serious, as many people have already mentioned. With unknowns in SEs come uncertainties. Even with all the biological and chemical research being conducted, there is a lot that remains unknown. Scientists are trying to determine how and why drugs cause certain side effects, but there is still a big gap in the research. This brings forth a lot of different issues, including ethical implications. Doctors and other healthcare providers have an obligation to inform their patients about the treatments they prescribe. However, limited knowledge about these drugs can prevent doctors from giving their patients a detailed account of how these drugs will affect them. Therefore, patients are taking risks by exposing themselves to drugs that have not been thoroughly examined and researched. This becomes an ethical concern when doctors do not inform patients about the different side effects these drugs COULD cause. Patients need to know that there is no guarantee in how drugs will react with different individuals’ physiology.
One way to address this problem is to invest more money and time into drug research. The present research is not thorough, so the scientific community should strive for a more complete understanding of drugs and their SEs. People getting “used to side effects” is unacceptable, because we should not be comfortable with the shortcomings of different drugs and medications. If we uphold this type of attitude, drug research will dwindle, and people will continue to wander blindly into medical obstacles. We must keep the endgame in sight: we must understand how drugs and their SEs work. We must aim high: we should not lower our expectations simply because it is unlikely we will ever fully understand drugs and their SEs. Research is the only way with which we can comprehensively determine whether a drug is worth it. Do the benefits of a certain drug TRULY outweigh the costs of the drug? We must continue our research to find an honest answer to that question.
Choosing between two equally horrible choices is extremely difficult.Am I more comfortable living with severe acne, or am I more comfortable with the occasional nausea and involuntary movements? This choice can vary amongst patients, so it is important for the choice to be left to the patients. I personally would choose to live with the acne, as the medication could cause me more permanent long-term side effects in the future. Until more is known about developed drugs, I would tread with caution. It is important for doctors to make this point clear to patients. While patients have the ultimate choice in what they wish to do with their bodies, doctors have an obligation to give the most realistic and unbiased information to their patients. SEs are real problems, and patients should know that what these drugs offer on the surface may cause different damages beneath the surface.
This one is good. Keep up the good work I also visit here: and I get lot of information. Antipodes Skin Care Antipodes Australia
ReplyDelete