Perhaps linked to this January 23rd news:
MONTREAL — A team of researchers from the Montreal Heart Institute believe they have found an effective weapon against COVID-19: colchicine, an oral tablet already known and used for other diseases.
Full Article HERE
We had an enquiry from a reader – can we let him know the 100 commonest side effects listed for Colchicine.
This was too good an idea to keep simply as a response to him. It felt like a post in its own right.
Behind the scenes, you have RxISK team members who figure hydroxychloroquine may be more effective for Covid than the powers that be have been willing to concede if only because the powers that be have gone to such extraordinary lengths to diss it.
See Meryl Nass here. Difficult to avoid thinking conspiracy here except perhaps for the fact that if hydroxychloroquine is useful for coronaviruses why haven’t we been using it all this time.
Hydroxychloroquine might be useless but there still could have been a conspiracy to make as much money from the perhaps even more useless remdesivir as possible before something effective turned up.
Is Colchicine effective? Who knows. At the moment we have a press release. There seems like there has been a trial.
It is possible that an ancient drug like this – the history is worth Googling – works.
If it does, it will be interesting to see how the attack dogs let loose by those with a lot of money at stake go about their business. Hydroxychloroquine playbook or something else?
See 101 Uses for a Dead Journal.
The Full list of 100 most common side effects is HERE
The first point to note is colchicine is an old drug and not widely used so its likely relatively few people bother to report now. There are only only about 12% of the reports on it there are on Zoloft-sertraline for instance.
A second point is that with reports like this is the reporters or FDA coders can code kidney problems under many different headings – seven in this case. So it seems to make sense to do some amalgamating.
The commonest problems are gut problems – diarrhoea, abdominal pain, vomiting, nausea and potentially others like haemorrhage and constipation.
Abdominal problems come to at least 4,200 reports – 25.4 % of the total.
Kidney problems are the next most common group. These come to 2960 reports 17.8% of the total.
After this comes a series of reports about the drug being ineffective or making things worse. This is true for all drugs – antidepressants regularly make depressed people worse. In this case the problem may be fluid retention in joints – fluid retention definitely also happens.
These comprise 2600 reports – 15.8 % of the total.
Of interest to all RxISK readers is does colchicine cause suicide? Yes it probably does. This is one to add to our list of 300 Drugs that cause Akathisia and Suicide.
There are at least 1300 reports, 7.8% of the total that are consistent with this.
Of equal interest to RxISK readers is does colchicine cause sexual problems? Well searching through the top 900 reports there doesn’t appear to be anything to do with sex. This may be because the people who ordinarily get colchicine aren’t associated with sex.
It may take some young readers interested to warn off Covid by taking Colchicine to make the discovery and report back. What if it cured PSSD or PGAD?
Pain of various sorts happens in 2,840 cases – 17.1% of the total
Blood cell changes (anemia, neutropenia or pancytopenia, or liver enzyme changes) account for over 1900 reports or over 15% of the total reports.
Fatigue happens in 1450 cases – 8.7% of the total.
Skin problems happen in 1210 cases – 7.25% of the total
There are over 1200 reports of cardiac problems – 7.2% of the total. Adding raised blood pressure and stroke to this mix increases the totals to 1856 and 11.1% of the total.
There are 732 reports of Drug Hypersensitivity problems – 4.4% of the total.
Given the huge under-reporting on this drug and its possible use in people never exposed to it before if the claims that it can help in Covid catch on, we may be about to find out a lot more about what it does.
Anyone taking Colchicine is invited to Report to RxISK.
Who knows what might come to light.
My eyes paused on “could have been a conspiracy” . The Corbett Report back in 2013 did an excellent episode entitled “Rockefeller Medicine” telling the history of how the healthcare industrial complex turned against us.
Worth a watch (44 minutes) to understand the whole picture. Notice the shift from empirical evidence to ‘selective’ evidence-based medicine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6J_7PvWoMw
Conspiracy? Nah. Just good old fashioned long term business planing, financial muscle, imaginative propaganda and indoctrination (err… I might have missed a few others).
I watched the “Rockefeller Medicine” and it was a real eye opener.
The health industry is only interested in making money and they don’t care if people are maimed or die. My cataclysmic experience, has taught me that once you are damaged by bad medicine, you don’t want to enter the dark valley of the pitfalls of medicine, ever again. No matter how hard you try to educate people, they don’t want to know ~ this is the sad reality.
A majority of people have been adversely indoctrinated and it’s not until something tragic happens, that one has more insight and knowledge. How many people are going to be gravely impacted by these vaccines? Sadly, we will never know the truth.
Right now, there is no democracy regarding this Covid -19 or vaccines because we are all too busy wearing masks. This is so they can silence up those who know too much! Sometimes, if you are lucky, you get a few aware lawyers who are not afraid to speak their minds about this Covid-19. Here I am thinking, it was just me!
A snippett from the waffle – should individuals in positions of leadership be having unrecorded secret one to one meetings – of course they do – Shss – meet him/her on the park bench .he’ll be wearing red sox, the code is ‘you help us we’ll help you.’
Clare Gerada: Tips for surviving leadership
BMJ 2021; 372 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n195 (Published 26 January 2021)
Cite this as: BMJ 2021;372:n195Recognise that some discussions will take place in spaces you can’t access—pubs, clubs, social events. It’s important that you have sufficient informal one-to-one meetings with people of influence.
Towards better patient care:
drugs to avoid in 2020 (On the website there’s a very long detailed list of named drugs)
● To make it easier to choose quality care, and to
prevent disproportionate harm to patients, Prescrire
has published its annual update of drugs
● Prescrire’s assessments of the harm-benefit balance of drugs in given situations are based on a
rigourous procedure involving a systematic and
reproducible literature search, results based on
patient-relevant outcomes, prioritisation of the supporting data based on the strength of evidence, comparison with standard treatment (if one exists), and
taking into account known and potential adverse
effects, as well as the uncertainties surrounding them.
● This annual review of drugs to avoid covers all
the drugs examined by Prescrire between 2010 and
2019 that are authorised in the European Union or
in France. We identified 105 drugs (92 of which are
marketed in France) that are more harmful than
beneficial in all their approved indications.
● In most cases, when drug therapy appears to
be the best course of action, other drugs with a
better harm-benefit balance are available.
● Even if a patient has a serious condition for which
no effective treatment exists, there is no justification for prescribing a drug with no proven efficacy
that provokes severe adverse effects. It is sometimes acceptable to test these drugs in clinical
trials, but patients must be informed of the uncertainties over their harm-benefit balance as well as
the trial’s objectives. If this option is not chosen,
appropriate support and symptomatic care should
be implemented when there are no effective treatments for improving the prognosis or quality of life.
Rev Prescrire 2019; 39 (434): 931-942
This is Prescrire’s eighth consecutive annual
review of drugs to avoid, which includes
documented cases of drugs that are more
dangerous than beneficial (1,2). The aim is to make
it easier to choose safe, effective treatments,
primarily to avoid exposing patients to unacceptable
harms. The drugs listed (sometimes a particular
form or dose strength) should be avoided in all the
clinical situations for which they are authorised in
France or in the European Union.
A reliable, rigorous and independent
What data sources and methodology do we use to
assess a drug’s harm-benefit balance?
Our list of drugs to avoid concerns drugs and
indications on which we published detailed analyses
in our French edition over the 10-year period from
2010 through 2019 inclusive. Some drugs and indications were examined for the first time, while
others were re-evaluated as new data on efficacy
or adverse effects have become available.
One of the main objectives of our publications is
to provide health professionals (and thereby their
patients) with the clear, independent, reliable and
up-to-date information they need, free from conflicts
of interest and commercial pressures.
Prescrire is structured in such a way as to guarantee
the quality of the information provided to our
subscribers. The Editorial Staff comprise a broad range
of health professionals working in various sectors and
free from conflicts of interest. We also call on an
extensive network of external reviewers (specialists
in the relevant area, methodologists, and practitioners
representative of our readership), and each article
undergoes multiple quality controls and cross-checking
at each step of the editorial process (see About
Prescrire > How we work at english.prescrire.org).
Downloaded from english.prescrire.org on 28/01/2021
Copyright(c)Prescrire. For personal use only.
Prescrire International • January 2020 • Volume 29 N° 212 • Page 51-2
Our editorial process is a collective one, as symbolised
by the “©Prescrire” signature.
Prescrire is also fiercely independent. Our work
is funded solely and entirely by our subscribers. No
company, professional organisation, insurance
system, government agency or health authority has
any financial (or other) influence whatsoever over
the content of our publications.
Comparison with standard treatments. The
harm-benefit balance of a given drug has to be continually re-evaluated as new data on efficacy or adverse effects become available. Similarly, treatment
options evolve as new drugs arrive on the market.
Some drugs offer a therapeutic advantage, while
others are more dangerous than beneficial and
should not be used (3).
Prescrire’s assessments of drugs and indications
are all based on a systematic and reproducible literature search. The resulting data are then analysed
collectively by our Editorial Staff, using an established procedure:
– efficacy data are prioritised: most weight is given
to studies providing robust supporting evidence,
i.e. double-blind, randomised controlled trials;
– the drug is compared with a carefully chosen standard treatment, if one exists (not necessarily a drug);
– the results taken into account are based on the
clinical endpoints most relevant to the patients
concerned. This means that wherever possible we
ignore surrogate endpoints such as laboratory
markers that have not been shown to correlate with
a favourable clinical outcome (4,5).
Careful analysis of adverse effects. Adverse
effects can be more difficult to analyse, as they are
often less thoroughly documented than efficacy.
This discrepancy must be taken into account.
The adverse effect profile of each drug is assessed
by examining data from clinical trials and animal
pharmacotoxicology studies, and any pharmacological affiliation.
When a new drug is approved, many uncertainties
remain. Some rare and serious adverse effects may
have been overlooked during clinical trials and may
only emerge after several years of routine use by
a large number of patients (3).
Empirical data and personal experience:
risk of major bias. Empirical assessment of a
drug’s harm-benefit balance, based on individual
experience, can help to guide further research, but
it is subject to major bias that strongly reduces the
level of evidence of the findings (3,4). For example,
it can be difficult to attribute a specific outcome to
a particular drug, as other factors must be taken
into account, including the natural history of the
disease, the placebo effect, the effect of another
treatment the patient may not have mentioned, or
a change in lifestyle or diet. Similarly, a doctor who
sees an improvement in certain patients cannot
know how many other patients’ conditions worsened
when they received the same treatment (3).
The best way to minimise subjective bias caused
by non-comparative evaluation of a few patients is
to prioritise the results of clinical trials, particularly
double-blind, randomised trials versus standard
Serious conditions with no effective treatment: patients should be informed of the
consequences of interventions. When faced
with a serious condition for which there is no effective treatment, some patients opt to forgo treatment
while others are willing to try any drug that might
bring them even temporary relief, despite a risk of
serious adverse effects.
When the short-term prognosis is poor, some
health professionals may propose “last-chance”
treatments without fully informing the patient of
the harms, either intentionally or unwittingly.
But patients in this situation must not be treated
as guinea pigs. “Trials” of drugs belong in the sphere
of formal, properly-conducted clinical research, not
health care. It is useful of course to enrol patients
in clinical trials, provided they are informed of the
harms and the uncertain nature of the possible
benefits. The trial results should be published
(whether positive, negative or inconclusive) in order
to advance medical knowledge.
However, patients must always be made aware
that they have the option of refusing to participate
in clinical trials or to receive “last-chance” treatments
with an uncertain harm-benefit balance. They must
also be reassured that, if they do refuse, they will
not be abandoned but will continue to receive the
best available care. Even though the aim of supportive care and symptomatic treatment is not to
modify the underlying disease, they are useful
elements of patient care.
While there is a great deal of uncertainty surrounding the harm-benefit balance of drugs that are under
evaluation in clinical trials, drugs used for routine
care must have an acceptable harm-benefit balance.
Marketing authorisation should only be granted on
the basis of proven efficacy relative to standard
care, and an acceptable adverse effect profile: in
general, little, if any, additional information on efficacy is collected once marketing authorisation has
been granted (3).
105 authorised drugs that are more
dangerous than beneficial
As of late 2019, based on the drugs examined by
Prescrire between 2010 and 2019 that are authorised
in France or in the European Union, 105 drugs were
identified as more dangerous than beneficial in all
their authorised indications
Thank you Suzanne for your invaluable information.
Those who highlight the TRUTH are labelled anti vaxxers.
There is no need for these kind of labels especially when one has never experienced an unfavourable outcome.
We are now considered a BIG THREAT to pharmaceutical companies.
If I am not informed about the safety or efficacy of a product, I am not willing to take the RXISK (s)!
We do not know how it impacts:
– people who have pre-existing health issues
– people who have allergies to certain substances in the vaccine
– immunosuppressed people
– people who are ingesting other medicines e.g. antibiotics, other vaccines, herbal products
– people who are having chemotherapy or radiotherapy
If this vaccine is claimed to be safe for all, why are pregnant women or children exempt.