Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined

reply to post by Xcalibur254



Just saw a big pharma commercial for a drug called Intermezzo.

Intermezzo® (zolpidem tartrate) is indicated for use as needed for the treatment of insomnia when a middle-of-the-night awakening is followed by difficulty returning to sleep.

This is what was said in the commercial for this wonderful new drug.

Co-administration with Intermezzo and other CNS depressants increases the risk of CNS depression. Intermezzo should not be taken with alcohol. The use of Intermezzo with other sedative-hypnotics (including other zolpidem products) at bedtime or the middle of the night is not recommended. The risk of next-day driving impairment (and psychomotor impairment) is increased if Intermezzo is taken with less than 4 hours of bedtime remaining; if higher than recommended dose is taken; if co-administered with other CNS depressants; or co-administered with other drugs that increase the blood levels of zolpidem. A small negative effect on SDLP (standard deviation of lateral position, a measure of driving impairment) may remain in some patients 4 hours after taking Intermezzo, such that a potential negative effect on driving cannot be completely excluded. The failure of insomnia to remit after 7 to 10 days of treatment may indicate the presence of a primary psychiatric and/or medical illness that should be evaluated. Cases of angioedema involving the tongue, glottis, or larynx have been reported in patients after taking the first or subsequent doses of zolpidem. Some patients have had additional symptoms such as dyspnea, throat closing, or nausea and vomiting that suggest anaphylaxis. Some patients have required medical therapy in the emergency department. Angioedema, and additional symptoms suggesting anaphylaxis, may occur in patients taking zolpidem and may be fatal. Patients who develop angioedema or anaphylaxis should not be rechallenged.

And we wonder why these mystery killings with people seemingly gone mad?

I mean in the case of this drug... What could possibly go wrong?

Dr's know what they are doing.

I'm not finished yet.

Abnormal thinking and behavior changes have been reported in patients treated with a sedative-hypnotic including zolpidem. Complex behaviors, including driving or eating while not fully awake, with amnesia for the event, as well as visual and auditory hallucinations and abnormal behaviors such as decreased inhibition, bizarre behavior, agitation, and depersonalization may occur. Although behaviors such as “sleep-driving” have occurred with zolpidem alone at therapeutic doses, the co-administration of zolpidem with alcohol and other CNS depressants increases the risk of such behaviors, as does the use of zolpidem at doses exceeding the maximum recommended dose. Discontinuation of Intermezzo should be strongly considered for patients reporting a “sleep-driving” episode. In primarily depressed patients, worsening of depression, including suicidal thoughts and actions (including completed suicides) have been reported with the use of sedative-hypnotics. Intentional overdosage is more common in this group of patients; therefore, protective measures may be required and prescribe the least amount of Intermezzo that is feasible.

and of course:

Because persons with a history of addiction to or abuse of drugs or alcohol are at increased risk for misuse, abuse, and addiction of zolpidem, they should be monitored carefully when receiving Intermezzo. Zolpidem tartrate is a Schedule IV controlled substance. Post-marketing reports of abuse, dependence, and withdrawal resulting from use of oral zolpidem tartrate have been received. Zolpidem has produced withdrawal signs and symptoms following a rapid dose decrease or abrupt discontinuation. The most commonly observed adverse reactions (>1%) were headache (Intermezzo 3%, placebo 1%), nausea (1% for both patient groups), and fatigue (Intermezzo 1%, placebo 0%). Please read the Full Prescribing Information. To report SUSPECTED ADVERSE REACTIONS, contact Purdue Pharma L.P. at 1-888-726-7535 or FDA at 1-800-FDA-1088 or www.fda.gov/Safety/MedWatch. Intended for healthcare professionals of the United States of America only. ©2013 Purdue Pharma L.P., Stamford, CT 06901-3431

Originally posted by daskakik

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
Guns don't kill people. People kill people.

If they don't kill people then logically they also don't save people.

Correct. People are the wielders of tools, and they choose how they use those tools. They can use them for good or evil. Guns didn't invent themselves, people invented them in order to fight people who wield other types of tools of death. Guns were invented to fight people with sharp swords, bows n' arrows and axes. Guns were used to either protect your life or take it. Your enemy uses the gun to kill you, and you use the gun to either dissuade them from killing you, or killing them before they kill you. A weapon is a neutral object that will do whatever it is you choose to do with it. That is why the person holding the gun is always the problem which needs to be solved, and the tool he is using is not as relevant as is his intention and reason for pointing it at you. Guns, knives, poison,.... these are all just a symptom of a sick or troubled mind.

There is a difference between killing someone and not being able to save them. Sure there are cases where a doctor may be the cause of death but you can't just label every death that occurs "death by doctor".

Yes, of course the method of death is going to bring about different emotions in people. What about drunk driving deaths? Here's an excerpt from an ABC news article, Guns in America, a Statistical Look

According to the FBI Uniform Crime Report, between 2006 and 2010 47,856 people were murdered in the U.S. by firearms, more than twice as many as were killed by all other means combined.

47,856 people died from gunshot wounds in a span of four years. I have no idea what they mean by "other means", but certainly they don't mean drunk driving. How do I know? Because if we combine drunk driving deaths over the span of four years (between 2006 and 2010 according to this Drunk Driving Fatalities National Statistics website), we come to the conclusion that 45,739 people died due to drunk driving accidents. If we also include deaths induced by the violent acts of drunk individuals and if we include the number of deaths due to alcohol poisoning/abuse, the numbers jump above that of gun deaths. Who knows how many of those gun-induced deaths were due to alcohol abuse!

So,... if we're going to talk about banning guns due to all the unnecessary death they are causing, then we definitely have to talk about alcohol. Are we going to blame the alcohol, or are we going to blame the alcoholics and the irresponsible weekend drinkers who decide to get behind the wheel?

reply to post by 2manyquestions

Someone arrives at a hospital having a heart attack after decades of an unhealthy lifestyle and the doctors are not able to save him and you want to place the blame on the doctors? Maybe the Health Ranger is OK with that but I am not.

The deaths from drunk driving are probably not included because of the lack of intent to kill on the part of the driver.

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by 2manyquestions

 

Someone arrives at a hospital having a heart attack after a decades of an unhealthy lifestyle and the doctors are not able to save him and you want to place the blame on the doctors? Maybe the Health Ranger is OK with that but I am not.

The deaths from drunk driving are probably not included because of the lack of intent to kill on the part of the driver.

We see things differently. Irresponsibility, carelessness, disrespect and stupidity is what kills. Who cares if Jane didn't mean to murder anyone on her way home from the bar? She got drunk, she got behind the wheel and didn't give it a second thought that she might kill an innocent family on the way. To me that's the same as taking a gun and firing a few rounds into the air, potentially killing one or more people with a stray bullet. To me that's the same as playing with a loaded gun and accidentally shooting your friend or classmate. It's the same as having a lack of respect for the person you're about to shoot dead out of a jealous or vengeful rage.

As for doctors,.... we're not talking about those who do everything in their power to do everything right, we're talking about those who have lack of knowledge or don't pay enough attention to their patients to notice they're either misdiagnosing them, leaving a dirty sponge inside them, or prescribing a dangerous combination of drugs without giving it a second thought. That's part of being careless, stupid and maybe even disrespectful.

Originally posted by 2manyquestions
We see things differently. Irresponsibility, carelessness, disrespect and stupidity is what kills. Who cares if Jane didn't mean to murder anyone on her way home from the bar? She got drunk, she got behind the wheel and didn't give it a second thought that she might kill an innocent family on the way. To me that's the same as taking a gun and firing a few rounds into the air, potentially killing one or more people with a stray bullet. To me that's the same as playing with a loaded gun and accidentally shooting your friend or classmate. It's the same as having a lack of respect for the person you're about to shoot dead out of a jealous or vengeful rage.

It has nothing to do with how I see things. I'm just putting that out there as the reason why the stats don't include those deaths.

As for doctors,.... we're not talking about those who do everything in their power to do everything right, we're talking about those who have lack of knowledge or don't pay enough attention to their patients to notice they're either misdiagnosing them, leaving a dirty sponge inside them, or prescribing a dangerous combination of drugs without giving it a second thought. That's part of being careless, stupid and maybe even disrespectful.

I'm sure the number in the article wasn't arrived at after going through every case one by one to see where a doctor gave it his all or not.

Obama fixed the doctors, now he's gonna fix the guns.

Quoting naturalnews , believing what they are saying and posting it here on ATS is a double face palm.
We know that naturalnews is a bad site to be quoting .

Oh, well when you put it like that murder seems totally acceptable, nice work.

Every time someone stars or flags a thread like this I lose a little more faith in humanity. Think people.

reply to post by winterkill


If your declaring to ban drs... I am at a loss for words. Did you ever stop to think about the potential of these people screwing up, like drinking or smoking while on these meds, or even that these stats could be influenced by saya loved who would rather have these medicated comatose people dead instead of suffering and did something under the radar, only to have to pinned on the dr?

reply to post by SpearMint


Big star for your response!

"Every U.S. hospital is another Sandy Hook".



Sorry I couldn't really get past the language used in the article or the obvious bias.

I believe i have read that Big Pharma has a death rate of over 100,000 a year from meds
and side effects. Also, wonder How many have died because of Monsantos franken foods
and tumor/ cancer side effects. Big corps get away with murder every day.... Leave our Guns alone!

Originally posted by 2manyquestions

Originally posted by purplemer

Doctors kill 2,450% more Americans than all gun-related deaths combined

Yes but Doctors save a more lifes than guns...

Guns can and do save lives as well. That's why you see cops carrying guns.

Cops carry guns to protect themselves, not the public.

Anyone buying into the logic of this story, please run the following experiment.

Make 1 appointment with the Dr. every day for 100 days and see if they kill you.

Follow that up with shooting yourself 100 times and how well the firearm saves your life.

Have someone post results.

This is very revealing. Guns are NOT the problem. Just shut your wet holes you anti-gun pansies and gun-control shills. It is gigantically unlikely that a given person will ever be shot in his lifetime. Leave our Rights the hell alone. You're only protecting criminals. End of story.

Originally posted by pillock
Quoting naturalnews , believing what they are saying and posting it here on ATS is a double face palm.
We know that naturalnews is a bad site to be quoting .

I was just about to post the same thing.

People need to seriously beware of some of the info that comes from naturalnews, it's nothing short of dangerous sometimes.

CX.

reply to post by CX


Giant facepalms should be applied to people who watch the nightly news, it is far more often to provide biased, unrealistic and complete garbage information.

I laugh at the people who are beyond paranoid, and those are the ones complaining about this source.

Originally posted by ParasuvO
reply to post by CX

 

I laugh at the people who are beyond paranoid, and those are the ones complaining about this source.

Sorry but I think you have that backwards. The author of this article has got to be the most paranoid person out there. Anyone who sees a killer behind every lab coat needs help.

Originally posted by LesMisanthrope
reply to post by winterkill

 

The Dr's are trying to save lives, not intending to kill. There's a really, really big difference between Dr's and guns. I didn't think I needed to point point out the absurdities here, but apparently I do.

Dr's aren't weapons. Guns aren't humans trying to save lives.

Oh and here's what violent means for future reference:

violent |ˈvī(ə)lənt|
adjective
using or involving physical force intended to hurt, damage, or kill someone or something: a violent confrontation with riot police.
• (esp. of an emotion or unpleasant or destructive natural force) very strong or powerful: violent dislike | the violent eruption killed 1,700 people.
• (of a color) vivid.
• Law involving an unlawful exercise or exhibition of force.

When your standing there and the doctor goes into a soft kill speak about how your mom has lived a long life and the best thing to do is let her go....I know, I have seen it ... not my mother but my fiancées aunt .... according to the "professionals" she had 3-4 months ..... however, we brought her home and gave her proper care Aunt Lee lived another 6 and a half years. We had to fight for proper care the whole time. The medical establishment knowingly kills seniors and then sends the bill to Medicare! ...... oh and what about the reports out of the UK where they withhold food, water so a patient falls into a coma to never wake up from?