we did not leave a single hospital in pakistan. we have consulted many many doctors.but still no solution. She has always pain in hands, anckles and knees all the time and they are always swellon.please help

What is the risk? Heart Valve or atherosclerosis?

After years of 800 MG ibuprofen my doctor took me off them, this is the same doctor who took me off Embrel when I developed neurological symptoms consistent with MS and the same one who 4 years ago put me on Vioxx and then took me off Vitamin E (whoops made a little mistake there).

He’s an excellent rheumatologist and is well known.

I’m a musician and a have a sausage digit it it stays swollen long enough I’ll lose mobility doctors don’t seem to take stuff like that serious that’s a huge deal to me I already have 2 deformed fingers from reiter’s syndrome (reactive arthritis) so I went to Mexico and got some prednisone. I like Ibuprofen but not enough to die for.
Well I am qualified to put myself on prednisone. I’m the only one qualified to make decisions about my heath, I hire a doctor for his expert advice and scientific knowledge, not because I need a new god

It was reported that BP made 6 billion dollars in profit so far this year. And the cost of the oil spill so far has totaled about 0 million. Do fines even serve as punishment to corporations that make so much money? This often applies to pharmaceutical corporations, too. I remember that Pfizer was fined because of a drug named Bextra. The fines and lawsuits totaled up to about 1/6 of the money that Pfizer made in profit from the drug.
Pfizer was fined because it was pressuring its drug reps to push Bextra to the doctors at twice the dosage so they could bill Medicaid twice the amount even though they knew this would cause serious health problems in some patients.

CNN ran a good story about Pfizer a few weeks ago. It was titled "Too Big To Nail". Pfizer was pushing a drug they knew was harmful (Bextra). And then to make even more money from this harmful drug, they pushed their pharmaceutical reps to bribe doctors to double the dosage of the harmful drug. They figured they could make twice as much money by billing Medicare and Medicaid for 40 mg of the drug instead of 20 mg of the drug. All in the name of profit. Patients died as a result. Pfizer was only fined three moths of profit. None of the Pfizer management went to prison for murder. No CEO’s were imprisoned. So I ask you, is it ethical for a business to push a product they know will be harmful so they can make a profit to satisfy the shareholders? Is it ethical for the upper management of a corporation to push a dangerous product so they can have bigger salaries and bonuses? How are these CEO’s different from drug dealers on the street who sell harmful drugs to their customers?

http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/04/02/pfizer.bextra/index.html?eref=rss_topstories&utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+rss%2Fcnn_topstories+(RSS%3A+Top+Stories)

I’ve been suffering from swollen joints for years periodically. Now I’m constantly suffering from extremely painful and very swollen wrists. Sometimes in both or one or the other. I’ve read about Bromelin and just need to know about results. I’m female and in my 30’s. I’v been to the doctors and had blood tests, which came back normal I don’t want to take chemical enhanced drugs.

Of course doctors say it’s good for you, but I want answers from people that had it done if possible.

Why do they only include 2 viral types of the many that cause cancer and include 2 types that only cause warts. Likely they will come out with a complete vaccine that coincides with the date the current vaccine comes off patent. Thanks again Merck for leaving out the Vioxx data and lying to the public and Doctors.
as far as my credentials go I went to medical school and residency and am Board certified. With lisences to practive medicine in several states. Its important for all the chemistry posters to realize there are 4 viral types in the current vaccine 2 are for cancer and 2 are for warts. I am saying substitute cancer causing types for the wart types that are currently in the vaccine. I like the posts we have because they explain to me why americans get what they deserve from drug companies.

Why do they only include 2 viral types of the many that cause cancer and include 2 types that only cause warts. Likely they will come out with a complete vaccine that coincides with the date the current vaccine comes off patent. Thanks again Merck for leaving out the Vioxx data and lying to the public and Doctors.
Its important for all the chemistry posters to realize there are 4 viral types in the current vaccine 2 are for cancer and 2 are for warts. I am saying substitute cancer causing types for the wart types that are currently in the vaccine.
Dear wondering since you are clearly so knowledgable about this would you care to wager whether or not 7 or more valent vaccines will come out in the next 7-10 yrs?? Its fun to be a stooge for Merck but put your money where your mouth is. I know this is coming and would bet alot of money with anyone.
thanks michael for reposting your answer I reposted in the health section because I felt maybe that was a more accurate categorization for the question. As to your answer specifically: my issue is this if they put in the vaccine only certain virus types specifically the nonpathologic ones do you feel they are in some measure responsible for the cancers they could have prevented?

pharmaceutical drugs that have killed thousands of people, yet focuses almost exclusively on exposing alternative medicine and nutritional/herbal supplements? Dr Barrett(who runs Quackwatch) similarly doesn’t mention anything about all the deaths caused by NSAIDs(non steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs) or other over-prescribed, wrongly prescribed or overused pharmaceutical drugs that kill thousands every year. While I think he does an excellent job of exposing all the fraud and quackery in alternative medicine(just about all of it is either useless or unproven), why does he very rarely, if ever warn people about certain dangerous pharmaceutical drugs(I’m not saying all drugs are harmful) that harm or kill far more people than alternative medicine? http://www.quackwatch.com/
While I think you make good points, and I highly value the information Dr Barrett puts on his site(although just about all of it consists of, what are to me, obvious scams and obvious quackery), I still think his mission would be better served or his credibility greatly improved if he did include occasional warnings about mainstream drugs and treatments that do not work. By NOT doing this, he allows alternative practitioners and critics of science-based medicine to score easy points against him, when they can point out "I warned you about Vioxx and Dr Barrett didn’t, so who do you trust?".
Again, I am not a believer in alternative medicine, yet Barrett and Quackwatch kind of give the impression that mainstream medicine is perfect, mainstream medicine is always right, alternative medicine is always wrong. This is too simplistic, even though science-based medicine is what I use and believe in, all the while I know it isn’t perfect, it is flawed, doctors and drug manufacturers make mistakes(or hide negative results)that end up killing people every year, among other things.
One other thing that gets me is that whenever a massive fraud is uncovered when it comes to drug research, or some drug is exposed as being very dangerous, so many doctors express a lot of "shock" over this. I’m not sure if this shock is real or if they are putting on an act, because as a non-medical layperson, I’m never shocked by the fraud that occasionally happens in medicine and drug research. Certainly, science-based medicine is peer-reviewed and self-correcting(ideally anyway), unlike alternative medicine, but I think some doctors would better serve the public by looking more closely into the studies behind the drugs they use, rather than attacking certain alternative therapies that are useless but otherwise harmless. Note I am not saying they shouldn’t be putting down alt-med quackery, but they give the false impression that all the dangers are in alt-med, not in mainstream med, yet mainstream med kills by orders of many magnitude far more people than alt-med.
As a big-believer, and supporter of science-based medicine, I think Quackwatch inadvertently plays into the hands of alternative medicine pushers who can always point to Barrett and Quackwatch as always dropping the ball when it comes to dangerous mainstream drugs and treatments. I want Quackwatch to improve its credibility among those who rush to alternative medicine because it was their alt-med guru who warned them about Vioxx first. Similarly, Barrett makes no concessions to those few instances where certain things once considered alternative do have some science in support of them, like a few herbals for instance. It wouldn’t be a sign of weakness if he did this(it would, to me, be the opposite), and the fact that he doesn’t makes him seem like a unquestioning shill for the pharmaceutical companies which while they do not fund him, do fund the American Council of Science and Health, of which he is an adviser.

I understand that exogenous steroidal administration (such as hydrocortisone) can be dangerous for many reasons. Likewise, NSAIDs, like ibuprofen, naproxen, asa, etc. have their inherent dangers as well. my question is - for doctors approaching inflammation and mild pain - what criteria for the condition in question must be met in order for the physician to prescribe one of the meds over the other (that is, an NSAID over a steroid and vica verca)?