Dr. K's right. Codeine is about 1/2 as potent as morphine, give or take. And the liver converts codeine to morphine.
Natural Morphine is derived from the same Poppy plant that we get opium from (and heroin too). Codeine is also present in the Poppy plant, and it differs from morphine only slightly (a CH30- group substitute for an -OH group for us chemistry buffs).
So to answer your ?? Rich, yes, they do come from the same basic compound.
Gene
Rotator Cuff
Moderator: Available
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Van
* Nobody has YET proven that Celebrex relieves pain or reduces inflammation better than standard NSAIDs.
* The little bit of aspirin you take in LDAT negates the specific advantage of taking Celebrex (lower incidence of GI problems).
It could be that with more research and better data, we get more precise language around those two statements, as well as better understand the potential side effects of mixing and matching analgesics.
If someone is supplying the Celebrex and you can afford it and it makes you feel good, well then fine. I'm not going to tell Joe Yuppie that he doesn't really need a Hummer to drive to and from work; it might just make him happy.
As with the whole diet controversy, stay tuned!!!
Gene
I'll get back with you on the references.
- Bill
Well given everything we are discussing, there's no reason to believe he's wrong. All we are saying (if the interpretation of the research is good) is that it's very expensive to do that (because Celebrex is still a prescription and the manufacturer is in the high cost phase of this product's lifespan) and a much, much cheaper alternative (coated or buffered aspirin at standard dose) will probably work just as well. The reasons are because:Well, my doctor today said it is okay to take both celebrex and ldat
* Nobody has YET proven that Celebrex relieves pain or reduces inflammation better than standard NSAIDs.
* The little bit of aspirin you take in LDAT negates the specific advantage of taking Celebrex (lower incidence of GI problems).
It could be that with more research and better data, we get more precise language around those two statements, as well as better understand the potential side effects of mixing and matching analgesics.
If someone is supplying the Celebrex and you can afford it and it makes you feel good, well then fine. I'm not going to tell Joe Yuppie that he doesn't really need a Hummer to drive to and from work; it might just make him happy.
As with the whole diet controversy, stay tuned!!!
Gene
I'll get back with you on the references.
- Bill
Interesting..
Is there a strategy in all this? Like taking a LDAT in the early morning and a clebrex in the late evening?
How long does the "benefit" of each pill last?
Is there a strategy in all this? Like taking a LDAT in the early morning and a clebrex in the late evening?
How long does the "benefit" of each pill last?
Last edited by Van Canna on Fri Feb 21, 2003 5:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Van
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Mary
Good questions. Maybe when you are a little older and a few battles wiser, you will develop and appreciation. We each have our own hand of cards that we must play. Age and genetics and a lifetime of certain habits put individuals in situations where they need help.
Nevertheless, this thread has prompted me to think about starting another. Your point is well taken.
Van
These are REALLY good questions. There is indeed a time course to the action of a drug, and it isn't really all that simple. There is also a time course to the side effects of a drug, and it follows its own path.
The truth is that people are still figuring these things out. It's only recently - after ibuprofen and aspirin had been on the market for decades - that folks found out that ibuprofen blocked the blood thinning effects of aspirin. They're still trying to figure out that one (like if I take this pill first and then that...).
I think at this point, educated people can only guess, and then they could only be sure after testing their educated guesses.
The analgesic (pain relieving) effect of these drugs follows a fairly short time course. I believe the anti inflammatory effect has a little longer time course. I would think that the effect on the COX I enzyme and its ability to help the body build a GI lining is also a longer time course. And I would think the effect on platlets (blood thinning) would also be a fairly long time course. But it's complicated. It involves effects on multiple biochemical pathways. People were using aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid from the bark of the willow tree) for generations before anyone knew how it worked. Meanwhile, what we know about the benificial effects of LDAT on risk for a heart attack or stroke is relatively new. And we are just now figuring out the role of inflammation in heart disease. It was only a few months ago that the medical community approved the C-Reactive Protein test that is a powerful indicator of inflammation-based heart disease. According to recent research, that test is as strong an indicator of heart attack risk as a cholesterol level.
Take a look at Aspirin Therapy: Right for Me. That should give you an idea of the risks of this simple therapy. It's enough to make you believe you are totally out of that GI safe zone. But a risk of GI bleed is better than a risk of death or disability from heart attack or stroke. In the end, it's a cost/benefit decision.
- Bill
Good questions. Maybe when you are a little older and a few battles wiser, you will develop and appreciation. We each have our own hand of cards that we must play. Age and genetics and a lifetime of certain habits put individuals in situations where they need help.
Nevertheless, this thread has prompted me to think about starting another. Your point is well taken.
Van
These are REALLY good questions. There is indeed a time course to the action of a drug, and it isn't really all that simple. There is also a time course to the side effects of a drug, and it follows its own path.
The truth is that people are still figuring these things out. It's only recently - after ibuprofen and aspirin had been on the market for decades - that folks found out that ibuprofen blocked the blood thinning effects of aspirin. They're still trying to figure out that one (like if I take this pill first and then that...).
I think at this point, educated people can only guess, and then they could only be sure after testing their educated guesses.
The analgesic (pain relieving) effect of these drugs follows a fairly short time course. I believe the anti inflammatory effect has a little longer time course. I would think that the effect on the COX I enzyme and its ability to help the body build a GI lining is also a longer time course. And I would think the effect on platlets (blood thinning) would also be a fairly long time course. But it's complicated. It involves effects on multiple biochemical pathways. People were using aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid from the bark of the willow tree) for generations before anyone knew how it worked. Meanwhile, what we know about the benificial effects of LDAT on risk for a heart attack or stroke is relatively new. And we are just now figuring out the role of inflammation in heart disease. It was only a few months ago that the medical community approved the C-Reactive Protein test that is a powerful indicator of inflammation-based heart disease. According to recent research, that test is as strong an indicator of heart attack risk as a cholesterol level.
Take a look at Aspirin Therapy: Right for Me. That should give you an idea of the risks of this simple therapy. It's enough to make you believe you are totally out of that GI safe zone. But a risk of GI bleed is better than a risk of death or disability from heart attack or stroke. In the end, it's a cost/benefit decision.
- Bill
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
So what?
The only "problems" that can be cured with pills, injections, medications, etc are some infections and some cancers. Take some antibiotics for pneumonia for a short while, and all better. And even then, not all infections can be cured with any medications at all, only managed, like HIV. The same goes for cancer.Forgive my ignorance on most things medical but is it true that none of these medications actually cure the problem(s)?
I think sometimes we've become a pill popping society. I can almost hear Grace Slick....
We can manage disease. We can arrest the advancement of disease in patients. We can even stop diseases from spreading in populations. But, save for a few infectious conditions and cancers, "cures" aren't to be found in pills.
So what?
Jusy because the manic-depressive can't be "cured", does that mean it's pointless for her to take her medication daily? Just because grandpa's hands are arthritic, does that mean he shouldn't take his pain relievers daily?
The assertion that we're, supposedly, a "pill popping society" is a testament to how much medical science has come in helping us manage our health better. Think of how many people, who have left us, who's daily lives would have been more enjoyable if the had access to the "pills" we have today.
Gene
Gene, every year at my office we are offered the newest and latest in flu shots. Every year I decline. I have had the flu once in the last six years at my office and have never missed more than 3 sick days per year in the last ten. Others who take the shot are down for days... Instead of relying on the lastest hypodermic full of whatever, I rely on a semi-healthy lifestyle (yes, I just quit smoking and I'm trying to get as much exercise as I can, along with eating more heathier).
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for using drugs if you need them. The elderly, people who are susceptable, children - yes. But those who don't get sick or who seem not to have lower immunity systems - why should they?
The point of my post was, why take it if you don't need it. How can you expect the immune system to work if you won't let it. Every night I come home and turn on the tube there's a new advert for some new drug that the public just "needs" to have. Some guy is dancing down the street or some skater is dragging kids around the rink...gimme a break!!!
The other "testament" is that advertisers can sell snow to Eskimos. If "famous so and so" is touting the latest - it must be the best thing going!!
I don't think I have to be little older or a few battles wiser to develop an appreciation that for the most part a healthy lifestyle negates the need for drugs that perhaps one can do without.
Don't get me wrong - I'm all for using drugs if you need them. The elderly, people who are susceptable, children - yes. But those who don't get sick or who seem not to have lower immunity systems - why should they?
The point of my post was, why take it if you don't need it. How can you expect the immune system to work if you won't let it. Every night I come home and turn on the tube there's a new advert for some new drug that the public just "needs" to have. Some guy is dancing down the street or some skater is dragging kids around the rink...gimme a break!!!
The other "testament" is that advertisers can sell snow to Eskimos. If "famous so and so" is touting the latest - it must be the best thing going!!
I don't think I have to be little older or a few battles wiser to develop an appreciation that for the most part a healthy lifestyle negates the need for drugs that perhaps one can do without.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
Mary
My comment sure didn't come across right.
What I meant is that you're young, healthy, and hardy, and haven't yet come across some of the inevitable conditions of life where pharmaceutical intervention is considered the evidence-based standard of care.
Funny... To Gene's point, we consider pharmaceutical therapy to be the desired alternative to ending up in a hospital, and so encourage folks with chronic conditions to take their medications. Folks with high blood pressure can avoid heart attacks by taking their antihypertensive medicine. Folks with diabetes can take their insulin injections. Folks with joint problems can take some occasional NSAIDs and stay active, thereby staving off other problems related to inactivity. Schizophrenics can leave mental institutions and support themselves. Middle aged folks like myself can take glucosamine/chondroitin and stay active, thereby increasing their ability to manage weight, maintain cardiorespiratory fitness, and maybe even avoid joint replacements at a later age.
Life is good...and it could always be better.
To YOUR point, a good number of us could avoid many problems that lead to conditions that require treatment if we exercised, ate right, and avoided the typical vices. But then...tell that to my 81-year-old, chain smoking mother-in-law.
- Bill
My comment sure didn't come across right.
What I meant is that you're young, healthy, and hardy, and haven't yet come across some of the inevitable conditions of life where pharmaceutical intervention is considered the evidence-based standard of care.Funny... To Gene's point, we consider pharmaceutical therapy to be the desired alternative to ending up in a hospital, and so encourage folks with chronic conditions to take their medications. Folks with high blood pressure can avoid heart attacks by taking their antihypertensive medicine. Folks with diabetes can take their insulin injections. Folks with joint problems can take some occasional NSAIDs and stay active, thereby staving off other problems related to inactivity. Schizophrenics can leave mental institutions and support themselves. Middle aged folks like myself can take glucosamine/chondroitin and stay active, thereby increasing their ability to manage weight, maintain cardiorespiratory fitness, and maybe even avoid joint replacements at a later age.
Life is good...and it could always be better.
To YOUR point, a good number of us could avoid many problems that lead to conditions that require treatment if we exercised, ate right, and avoided the typical vices. But then...tell that to my 81-year-old, chain smoking mother-in-law.
- Bill
-
Gene DeMambro
- Posts: 1684
- Joined: Sat Dec 12, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Weymouth, MA US of A
Mary,
Your testamonial to the yearly flu shot is one I hear all the time. "I've never gotten the flu bad enough to miss work in 10 years" and "The last time I had the shot I was out sick for a week" are common ones.
However, the development of vaccines and immunizations against disease is a slam dunk public health policy. Polio, smallpox, anthrax, measles, whopping cough and all the other "childhood" diseases that have scourged humanity throughout its existance have been kept at bay for generations, and in many cases eradicated, due to "the lastest hypodermic full of whatever".
Worldwide, 40 Million people died in 1918-1919 due to a raging influenza pandemic-more people than WWI, or the Black Plague in Europe during the Middle Ages. One-fifth of the world's population were infected. So, yes, please give me that "lastest hypodermic full of whatever" if I'm possibly faced with those odds again.
And yes, a semi-healthy of "fully"-healthy lifestyle will do wonders for decreasing or eliminating risk factors for catching diseases or afflictions. But that's only a part of the equation. And sometimes it means diddly.
But congratulations on stopping smoking
Keep it up!
[quote]Every night I come home and turn on the tube there's a new advert for some new drug that the public just "needs" to have.[/quote[
'Tis why I've been saying for years for a complete ban on drug advertisements to the public. I say let the drugs speak for themselves with the results of credible research studies. But, alas, the 1st Amendment, and all that....
So if you are saying that we shouldn't get Dr. Feelgood to prescribe the newest drug-du-jour because it's on the idiot box, I completely agree.
But there's absolutely no question that with the range of medications we have today, there are a lot more people far better off than they would be if these "lastest hypodermic full of whatever" weren't around.
Gene
Your testamonial to the yearly flu shot is one I hear all the time. "I've never gotten the flu bad enough to miss work in 10 years" and "The last time I had the shot I was out sick for a week" are common ones.
However, the development of vaccines and immunizations against disease is a slam dunk public health policy. Polio, smallpox, anthrax, measles, whopping cough and all the other "childhood" diseases that have scourged humanity throughout its existance have been kept at bay for generations, and in many cases eradicated, due to "the lastest hypodermic full of whatever".
Worldwide, 40 Million people died in 1918-1919 due to a raging influenza pandemic-more people than WWI, or the Black Plague in Europe during the Middle Ages. One-fifth of the world's population were infected. So, yes, please give me that "lastest hypodermic full of whatever" if I'm possibly faced with those odds again.
And yes, a semi-healthy of "fully"-healthy lifestyle will do wonders for decreasing or eliminating risk factors for catching diseases or afflictions. But that's only a part of the equation. And sometimes it means diddly.
But congratulations on stopping smoking
Keep it up![quote]Every night I come home and turn on the tube there's a new advert for some new drug that the public just "needs" to have.[/quote[
'Tis why I've been saying for years for a complete ban on drug advertisements to the public. I say let the drugs speak for themselves with the results of credible research studies. But, alas, the 1st Amendment, and all that....
So if you are saying that we shouldn't get Dr. Feelgood to prescribe the newest drug-du-jour because it's on the idiot box, I completely agree.
But there's absolutely no question that with the range of medications we have today, there are a lot more people far better off than they would be if these "lastest hypodermic full of whatever" weren't around.
Gene
