Want to be a drug addict? If you live in the U.S. chances are you probably already are. The U.S. - land of the free, of MTV, and of legal drugs. This might just be what makes America great. A place where our doctors prescribe us pills we don’t need for conditions that don’t exist. It’s a win-win. Big Pharma gets bigger and richer and we get higher or just die.
Subscribe To My Channel:
Music: FloFilz - Tilezeit
The story was different 50 years ago when Jon went down to his dentist’s office to get his wisdom teeth pulled and the doctor gave him aspirin as pain medication. This was a time when young men went to war and women worked their asses off at home to save the country from collapse. Now? We get high, play video games, watch YouTube, and complain when someone doesn’t call us the right gender. And these days if old Jonny boy goes to the dentist and wants some work done it’s dealers choice. Vicodin. Percocet. Codeine. You name it. Whatever company happens to be in bed with your doctor that day. And if you don’t have private insurance that pays for your drugs? No problem. Sign up for Medicaid. You’ll definitely be able to get free drugs through them.
First what exactly is the pharmaceutical industry? To make a long story short it’s a business that creates drugs for use as medications. It’s important to note that it’s not a terrible industry. In fact they have made some very important discoveries like insulin which has saved millions of lives or the countless vaccines that have protected us from at one point, very common diseases like measles and hepatitis.
The problem is not the idea of pharmaceuticals – drugs are neither good nor bad. They can either be helpful or dangerous depending on their use. The problem with big pharma is that it is literally killing people. And it’s making a profit doing so. And our government is basically encouraging it.
You may ask yourself how an industry that it supposed to be providing us medication which is regulated by the Federal Drug Administration – an organization responsible for “protecting the public health by assuring the safety, efficacy and security of human…drugs,” is killing us. Let’s first look at the health statistics:
• 99% of hydrocodone worldwide use is in the U.S – we know this drug more colloquially as Vicodin (which is just a company that makes hydrocodone). This is a drug that the FDA rates as less dangerous as marijuana but in 2011 caused nearly 100,000 emergency department visits.
• The U.S. makes up 5% of the world’s population but consumes 80% of its opioid consumption
• On average 40 deaths per day are linked to specifically prescription opioids and over 100,000 deaths per year linked with prescription drugs in general. This is far more deaths than what illegal street drugs cause.
• Prescription drugs are now the 4th leading cause of death in the U.S.
Ok. You get the point. Prescription drugs are dangerous and they are killing people. But now the question is why are people taking them if they’re so dangerous? The answer lies in the incredible reach of big Pharma. The pharmaceutical industry spends between 30 and 60 billion dollars a year on advertising their miracle drugs. You’ve all seen their ads – blue skies, beautiful couple, trees – having trouble sleeping? Bad knees? Buy our pill and feel like new. And then the 10 second list of possible side effects which always include “and in extreme cases, death.” The folks that regulate these advertisements have a budget of $9 million dollars. Do you really think a $9 million dollar budget is enough to regulate something that is more than 6,000 times that size. This is not a David vs. Goliath story. This is an ant vs. an elephant.
Big pharma is also notorious for selling drugs that aren’t approved for certain symptoms – a practice called Off-Label Promotion. For example your doctor might prescribe you an antidepressant because she or he believes it will help your migraines. This practice is at times is legal and at others illegal. If illegal you will learn shortly that the fine usually is smaller than the profit these companies make. Big pharma might just consider it another tax of doing business. And yes it has in some cases caused death.
There is also the idea that big Pharma creates new illnesses and solves them with their pills. Sounds like a conspiracy theory, right? But actually it makes a lot of sense and you’ve probably seen an ad that talks about some made up illness and a pill to fix it without thinking twice. For example restless leg syndrome. Is that really an illness?
Not ecstasy--stay away from most things made in a lab...
...except perhaps maybe possibly going-out-on-a-limb-here LSD, which arguably may or may not take you too far sideways, depending on factors that you may not know about, etc., etc...!
...and stick to the gifts of nature. I don't care if you believe in God or Evolution (could be the same thing, ya know, ya never know, and how do YOU know, ya know?), the chemistry and aggregate reality still work out the same.
Restless leg syndrome goes beyond sitting. It usually doesn't become a real problem until you can't sleep because your legs keep twitching. I never had restless leg syndrome until bed time. However, when I changed my diet completely, my restless leg syndrome went away. I never took drugs for it.
But I also can't really eat most things offered in regular supermarkets either, so now my food costs have gone up by buying all organic, Non-GMO foods and cooking everything from scratch with almond flour, coconut flour, brown rice, quinoa, beans, fish, and only using oils such as olive, avocado and coconut oil. (canola oil is GMO-avoid it like the plague!) Almost everything in the store has canola oil, high fructose corn syrup, sugar (GMO) and/or soybean oil (soybeans are also GMO) so yeah-you have to go to local organic farms or health food store which charges twice as much for produce and meat. I eat only cage free eggs from hens that are fed only organic feed but finding a farm that actually lets their chickens roam is difficult. If I have beef which is rare, it is only grass fed from local farmers.
I avoid corn, soy, sugar, gluten, and dairy.
But you know what? My blood sugar went back to normal, my high cholesterol went back to normal, my restless leg syndrome disappeared, no more heartburn, no more acid reflux, no more joint pain, I have way more energy, my sex drive was almost gone BEFORE the diet and after just two weeks I felt like a newly wed in terms of drive.
I never took prescription drugs and I didn't want to, but I knew if I didn't make dramatic changes I was going to have to but the fact is-my health problems like high blood sugar, high cholesterol, acid reflux, restless leg syndrome were because of my diet, not drugs. They lie to us just as much about GMO's and pesticides and sometimes I wonder if big pharma isn't involved in that too because all the health problems that come from GMO's and pesticides send people to the DR to get prescriptions or worse-kidney dialysis, liver and heart problems, dementia, CANCER! You get the picture....
I like your video but I believe Restless leg syndrome is in fact real. Happens to me at night, extreme urge to move legs. Sometimes irresistible & the feeling won’t leave until you move. Doesn’t let me sleep & I sometimes have to get out of bed & walk around for it to go away. Not running to a little pill though to fix this & add 10 more problems.
The FDA makes drug companies prove their drugs have a positive effect via clinical drug trials. The idea that drug companies invent diseases to create drugs is nonsense. It works the other way around: Doctors discover diseases, and then researchers try to come up with a treatment. This video is insane.
Get your Pain Meds,Anxiety Pills,likexana,hydrocodone,oxycodone,ritalin,percocet,onax at good prices.No Prescription Needed
Whatsapp: +1-(214) 980-7729
thought monkey,the opioid crisis's is a big lie,if you lived in pain so severe it keeps you from fuction even as a human being,but if the only pain you ever had is a hang nail where you cryed like a little bitch,you need to go get unbrainwashed be a real man and join the rest of us that live in the real world.
I have restless legs syndrome... it in fact is real. I'm not sitting down eight hours a day either, It's not alleviated by moving. I don't like the drugs that are on the market for it however, I'd rather smoke weed.
Why is radiation which causes 2nd degree burns in small children and high dose chemotherapy which destroys a plethora of cells ok but cannabidiol not which has proven anti-anxiety and anti-inflammatory among dozens of other health enhancing benefits? I understand it may not be a cure for malignant tumors but it doesnt do any harm either while atleast offerings some benefit so somebody's please explain this to me.
Everytime you search,type or google his name or whatever enter ajit pai and then word douchebag please! Lets start this and keep it forever PLEASE help do this! Add to trump also Like Thumbs up, thanks
kallebaah0 Well yeah I figured that. But it's related as far as the unintended movements. The sensation of bugs moving through your legs. It's a problem that can keep you up at night and diminish the quality of life.
It's not related to parkinsons. Its just treated by the same medication, Cabergoline. Cabergoline is also used by bodybuilders to counter steroid side effects. Doesn't mean bodybuilding is related to parkinsons.
Thought Monkey My girlfriend had it for a while so I've done some research on it. The symptoms are described as a feeling of bugs were moving around on your legs and you move your legs in reaction to this sensation. Through my research I discovered that it's thought to be a mild form of Parkinson's. Though I am in the medical field, I am no doctor, so take it for what it's worth. I know there is alot on this condition we don't yet know. Just thought I'd give a friendly fan correction.
I have restless leg syndrome. But I think it's because I don't like sitting still for more than a few minutes (sometimes seconds, haha). I'm sure there are some people who have RLS that have some kind of disease related to Parkinsons. But I don't think all of us do.
GLOBAL STRATEGIC HYPOTHESES: Big [Pig] Pharma profits only if they can keep you sick. The genesis of the concept of ‘Equitism’ as successor system to the present, profits-based, [state-]capitalist system of political economy [including to state-capitalist pseudo-socialism] was linked to several connotations of this term. The term ‘Equitism’ has name-resonance with the name of the tradition of “Equitable Jurisprudence” in Anglo-American law.
Growing out of the “Crown Chancery” in England [the Office of the Crown “Chancellor”], there emerged separate courts of equity, or “courts of conscience”, to which appeal could be made from judgments by those courts enforcing common law and statute law when a defendant held that a judgment rendered by such a common law/statute law court, while in accord with “the letter of that law”, represented a morally inadequate remedy, and thus violated “the spirit of the laws”, therefore, per that defendant, failing to deliver “true justice”.
In the U.S., the two, separate kinds of courts where merged into one, and the convergence of their principles begun, with U.S. courts “presiding in [both] law and equity”, and allowing “equitable” arguments and remedies, as well as “technical” arguments, and [strictly monetary] remedies. There have been homologous developments in the tradition of Napoleonic/Roman law.
In recent parlance, the term “equitism” is often used to refer to “gender equity”, as a “synthesis”, or “mean”, of feminism and “masculinism”. It is sometimes also used to name a “synthesis”, or “mean”, between egoism and altruism. There was, earlier in American history, an individualist “equitist” movement for the amelioration of property rights injustices.
But most importantly, the term “Equitism” is meant to invoke the concept of “Capital Equity”, and the tradition of “Stockholder Democracy” [“one-share-one-vote”] that follows from it.
“Capital Equity” rights -- rights exclusively reserved to owners of capital [of “capital equity stock”] -- are seen as a “first [and inadequate] species”, but as a first modern seed, of “Economic Democracy”, as distinct from “Political-only Democracy”; are seen as the embryo of a more extensive and all-citizens-inclusive form of “Stakeholder Democracy”, and of ‘Political-ECONOMIC DEMOCRACY’ as a whole.
‘Equitism’ is seen as “generalized social equity”; as “generalizing” social equity, to beyond the small class of owners of “controlling shares” of capital equity, to encompass the whole society, including every citizen, by constitutionally endowing each citizen, as a human right, with the ownership of new kinds of equitable “property”.
THIS “GENERALIZATION” OF EQUITY IS SEEN AS A REMEDY FOR THE CATASTROPHIC BUT PREDICTABLE, “LAWFUL” TENDENCY OF CAPITALIST “POLITICAL-ONLY”, REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY, TO DEGENERATE INTO TOTALITARIAN, STATE-CAPITALIST, POLICE-STATE DICTATORSHIP, AS CAPITAL CONTINUALLY CONCENTRATES INTO EVER FEWER HANDS, AS WE ARE NOW SEEING SO EGREGIOUSLY TODAY.
That concentration of capital-equity ownership eventually enables those “few hands” to prostitute -- to ‘“buy-out”’, in a ‘“hostile takeover”’, via an all-pervasive system of ‘legalized crime’, e.g., “lobbying”, i.e., via ‘‘‘legalized bribery’’’ -- the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of political government.
This ultimate “M&A” will thus totally defeat the constitutional “checks-and-balances” among those three, political, branches, “checks-and-balances” which were constitutionally designed to prevent this degeneration, and that were at least somewhat effective in doing so during the earlier phases of capital accumulation and concentration.
The ‘Equitist’ reform/revolution is seen as a ‘generalization’ of “Capital Equity”, forming a social ‘genus’ of Equity, by adding, via constitutional amendments, several new, inclusive ‘species’ of Equity, as newly recognized universal constitutional human rights.
‘Equitism’ is a ‘constitutionalization’ of ‘‘‘stakeholder democracy’’’ -- a ‘constitutional institutionization’ of ‘‘‘stakeholder democracy’’’.
Social Equity -- Social Justice -- requires ‘Universal Equity’; every-citizen-ownership of three new kinds of equity-property, as a matter of human right.
These new species of equity-property include:
(1) The [collective property] human right of Citizens’ Externality Equity [which can be seen as a collective property implementation of the so-called Coase “theorem”: decentralized, comprehensive, democratic, ‘grassroots regulation’ of polluters];
(2) The [personal property] human right of Citizens’ Birthright Equity [universal ‘socialized trust-funds’], totally portable, unified social safety nets for each citizen born, serving as a source for monthly guaranteed minimum annual income payments during periods of involuntary unemployment, and;
(3) The [“individual property”] human right of Citizens’ Stewardship Equity [via ‘socialized venture capital’], granting access to means of production to, potentially, every citizen -- to citizens self-organized into democratically self-managed, COMPETING ‘socialized producers’ cooperatives’ that promulgate qualifying business plans, and that successfully enlist a Social Bank, also a Citizens’ Stewardship Equity ‘socialized producers’ cooperative’, to take the risk of backing/funding that business plan. [This conception, of ‘Citizens’ Stewardship Equity’, owes an intellectual debt to the work of David Schweickart].
The citizen owners of successful such cooperatives hold their means of production as social property, in stewardship, not in local ownership, and pay a monthly social rent for its use that helps to fund the Citizen Birthright Equity personal Trust Funds of all citizens. Each citizen co-owner of a successful such cooperative receives two incomes from it: [possibly unequal, skills-based] compensation for time worked for that cooperative, and an equal share of the net operating surplus of that cooperative. Continuing capitalist firms will have to compete, for labor, with these cooperatives.
The dual incomes earned by Citizen Stewardship Equity producers’ coop co-owners will shift economic power, and social power -- hence political power -- decisively to the working class majority, and out of the “ever fewer hands” of the concentrated, mega-capital ownership plutocracy faction who presently rule GLOBALLY, and who presently push public policy relentlessly in the direction of a ‘humanocidal’ [“people are pollution”] police state dictatorship.
That faction is already conducting massive ‘Stealth Humanocide’ [“Stealth Eugenics”], via their global arms cartel/induced “civil wars”, their global drugs cartel [heroin, crack cocaine, etc.], the toxicity and ‘side-effects cascades’ engineered into their ‘pseudo-medicines’, including ‘pseudo-vaccines’, by the Rockefeller-AMA-Pharmaceutical Industry, and via engineered ‘pseudo-food’, etc., which induces mass chronic disease -- diabetes, heart disease, cancer, Alzheimer’s disease, autism, chronic pain/opioid addiction/overdose/mass death -- plus their “genetically-engineered”, or “genetically modified [GMO]” [genetically “enhanced”],‘designer diseases’, e.g., Lyme, AIDS, Ebola, Zika, etc.
The Stewardship coops will also be able to harness, and unleash, high productivity -- high productive force -- ‘universally prosperizing’ technologies which the ruling faction is suppressing, e.g., fusion power, whose spread would rapidly ‘technodepreciate’, to ~$0, the core capital assets upon which the power of that ruling faction is based, e.g., their ‘Global Dictatorship of Petroleum’.
For more about these ideas, see --
My blog on this topic can be visited via the following link --
The marketing of Purdue Pharma (makers of oxycontin and founded by the Sackler/profiteers) parallels similar off-label techniques in the prior authorization process that Claire McCaskell has recently exposed via investigation. When I learn of the incredible greed of pharma simultaneously knowing the potential of death/addiction, I can only turn to the musical West Side Story and start singing "Only in America." Singing keeps me from crying.
Restless leg syndrome isn't an imaginary illness. I very active in my job and i run a lot. Ive had it when I've been pretty inactive, and when I've been really active. It isn't a slight twitch in the leg, its a pain that you can feel and sometimes it feels like elastic bands are around my legs stopping blood flow. Nothing gets rid of it, and when i have it i cant sleep for sometimes a day at the time. Don't assume to know everything, this video wasn't as good as your usual stuff.
Restless legs syndrome isn't just about sitting too long. It's about, you can be active all day and be fine, but then you sit to relax or lie down to go to sleep and you get a very uncomfortable sensation in your legs/lower body. It's very uncomfortable and even when you are exhausted and ready to go to bed, your legs feel like they need to move and for some can be remedied by just moving but for others, the sensation is so incapacitating that sometimes you can only fall asleep by passing out for 10-20 maybe 30 minutes before having that sensation again. You barely sleep, then go to work, and it's a cycle. It's when you WANT to sit down but CANT because 2 minutes after sitting, your legs are like "nope! Let's move!" And it can be a caused by nerve damage, over active nerves, genetic abnormalities and predisposition but it is also a symptom of withdrawal from drugs, alcohol, etc or of medicine that's required for something heart related, blood related, etc. It's not just made up, it's very very real and it's not easy to live with. When I moved to Chicago in Junior High, I started getting sinus infections and itchy and runny nose in Spring Time. I remember taking Benadryl to see if it would help and I immediately felt sedated and like I wanted to go to sleep but my legs would not let me sleep. I felt so unbelievably uncomfortable and I just tossed and turned all night and the only way I could relieve the feeling was to get up but no matter how many times I did and no matter how tired I was, it would come right back as soon as I got comfortable. Sometimes if I passed out in enough time I could get up to an hour of sleep before it finally kicks in and I have to move. And then staying over friends houses or family making it impossible to just get up and walk around in the middle of the night. I haven't taken Benadryl since.
I have restless leg syndrome and I 100% agree with this. It's not about the people who fidget their legs because they are bored, it's an intense, aching need to move your legs (or arms, I've had that) - and the longer you fight it, the worse it gets. OMG it's so bad. I often end up sleeping sitting up because that helps it sometimes
I think restless leg syndrome is a thing, but the cure isn't a pill, it's getting up and moving your bodyIt's just like how back pain is becoming more and more prevalent, the cure isn't a pill or expensive massages, it's getting up and moving your body, eating right, and learning how to sit properly
Fluoxetine (Prozac) is not known to be responsible for someone going on a "rampage" and killing people. The Joseph Wesbecker case is VERY weak evidence. The guy exhibited all kinds of psychiatric symptoms before he ever began taking fluoxetine. He made death threats, had mania, and depression years before fluoxetine was even invented. Furthermore, from his symptoms, it is very clear that he did not have a simple case of clinical depression - he had full blown Bipolar type 1 disorder, which should not have been treated with an SSRI like fluoxetine. It should have been treated with Lithium or an antipsychotic like olanzepine. So this isn't a case of a drug being the culprit, but the case of a psychiatrist not prescribing the right medication. This also happened very early on in the use of fluoxetine, and so many doctors weren't educated on how to properly use it - which actually presents an argument in FAVOR of big pharma spending the time to ensure that doctors are adequately trained on the proper use of their medications; so that big pharma doesn't get sued over it. This also happened in the 1980's, over 30 years ago. If a single case is all you have against the toxic effects of fluoxetine over the last 30 years, then it means this drug is safer than water. More people have literally died from drinking too much water (water intoxication) in the same time span.
Another thing is that doctors routinely prescribe medication "off label". It's a completely legal practice that is accepted as the standard of medical care everywhere in the world. It's why you can take asprin for headache, or you can take asprin "off label" to prevent heart attacks and other clotting dissorders. This has been extensively researched and the medical community agrees that this is overwhelmingly beneficial to patients. Just because a drug was originally created for one purpose, doesn't meant that it can't be used effectively for other purposes. Like viagra being created for blood pressure, but being used for erectile dysfunction. If you're going to make the claim that this is a harmful practice, then you'll need to provide some kind of evidence to back that claim up. Who gets hurt when a drug that has been deemed as safe by the FDA is used to treat a wider range of diseases than it was originally created for? Rather than hurting people, it actually ends up saving a lot of people. Think about it - if we have to create a brand new dug from scratch, ever single time we want to treat a particular condition, then it's going to take years and years to address the multiplicity of diseases that affect humanity. But if the goal is to actually help people, then it makes more sense to avoid reinventing the wheel every time we want to solve similar diseases. Take the antidepressant example - depression is a neurological problem, and so antidepressants can treat it. But antidepressants can treat other neurological dysfunction as well; like OCD, and neurological pain. They all stem from a similar problem of neurological origin. It makes sense to try our pre-existing neurological medications to see if they can treat other neurological problems. Antidpressants have already been shown to be safe, and are already regularly prescribed, so it saves the hassle of trying to create a brand new compound.
Another problem that this video has is that you dismiss diseases as being "real". Restless Leg Syndrome might not seem real to you, but who are you to decide that? Your evidence is based on "humans have only had chairs for a small time during their evolutionary history, and so chairs = restless legs". That's not scientific, and you're not backing it up with any evidence. you're trying to use superficial logic and even more superficial pop-science to back up your claim. Even worse, is that you're alienating people who actually suffer from the disease, by telling them that their condition "isn't even real". I would just suggest sticking with hard facts and real logic, because it makes your arguments a lot stronger.
Having said all that - I really think this is a brilliant topic. Big pharma makes a $hit load, and their regulation is very shady, with a whole bunch of conflicts of interest (as you stated). But if you're going to make an argument against them, then you have to stay in the realm of facts and scientifically verified reality - rather than drifting off into the opinion land of speculation - because it distracts from your valid arguments and weakens the overall authority of what you're saying. You may want to consider addressing the issue of medical patents. Look up the guys who invented the polio vaccine and how they gave the patent away for free, so that companies could mass produce it for very cheap - which lead to the total eradication of the polio virus as a whole. Contrast that against guys like Martin Shkreli who bought a company that owned the patent for drug to cure toxoplasmosis, and raised the price from $13.50 to $750 for a single tablet.
You're right in saying that drugs are neither good nor bad. they're just a tool. It would help your case to go more into the ADHD medications that are used (which are literally speed and cocaine), or the opiate epidemic. it's a very complex issue that you could dive into. Attacking drugs like antidepressants is very weak, because they've been researched for decades, and shown to be very safe and effective. Oxycodone has actually been established to be extremely addictive and ends up doing a lot more harm than good. so stick to drugs that are abused, and not drugs that are used safely.
How do you make such good points about SSRIs, but then immediately denounce ADHD medications as "literally speed and cocaine" (which they are not). Amphetamine =\= methamphetamine. Cocaine isn't even prescribed for people with ADHD. Have you met someone with ADHD on their medication vs not on their medication? There is a world of difference! How can you go on about dismissing a mental illness like restless leg syndrome and then come back and dismiss one of the most deliberating mental illnesses?
I kind of always knew there was problems in pharmacy, but lately, over the past few years, I've greatly opened my eyes to the marketing and business world, and it's very clear that business plays a big part in the medications we take. I don't personally take any, but my younger bother does because he has health problems, and what I fear is exactly this. Him taking sh*t he doesn't need so other people can make money. Sigh, what a fked up world. We need to move to a human-based society, not money-based society.
100% agree. If enough people knew about the corporate greed that can be found in almost any big industry and cared enough to go out and vote against corporate interests we could change it. But that's a huge if. Like I said in the video it's big big money vs. the little guys.
Please could you post references on info you use in videos. I find vids to be really really good it is just that I also like to read papers because they contain more info and stuff. Keep up the good work
You have a logical fallacy that all pharmaceutical drugs are the same - toxic and addictive. You are right about the financing and marketing etc. But don't put all medications in one basket. Corticosteroids are not addictive but save lives for example.
Thought Monkey that's true at some senses, but now think about the idea of how it worsens.
And there's a way to fight Big Pharma: decentralisation.
It means that you will make yourself less dependent or even independent from them.
Take for example choosing for alternative medicine, which gsts more popular nowadays
Corticosteroids kill thousands every year, and when it does treat something it's almost always a problem caused by diet or lifestyle (When it isn't you still have PLENTY of natural options) . Corticosteroids actually kill your immune system and open the door for even more diseases. Diseases such as cancer rarely exists in populations that don't eat meat or processed foods. There's a reason why Bayer bought Monsanto lol. They feed you toxic GMO's sprayed with pesticides, then after you are diseased they sell you drugs to cure what the toxic foods caused. It's very, very simple
Thought Monkey You have a secondary problem in that you're not showing the other side of the story either. There are, yes, a handful of prozac-induced psychotic episodes due to v. rare and, unfortunately, at this time, unpredictable chemical interactions with a handful of individuals. On the other side, you have the literally thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people who are living more active and fulfilling lives because of prozac or, frankly, are only alive at all because of medical intervention. Depression kills a lot more than rare chemical side effects from SSRI meds do.
I'm not arguing against your greater point about the extremely problematic relationship between the FDA and Big Pharma, but you completely undercut your point -- as evidenced by a good 8th of the comments on this video being about how "Restless Leg Syndrome" is not made up -- by bringing up poor examples. RLS is a real disorder -- how active you are doesn't seem to determine how often it occurs and I'd like to see any widespread study that demonstrates it does -- or "headaches" -- migraines, for example, can be utterly dehabilitating and the stress indicators of patients during a migraine have been shown to be higher than a woman during childbirth -- or the v. rare times SSRI-inhibitors induce psychosis.
When you have a good argument you should probably focus on that argument rather than throwing in debatable and/or low-incidence examples. A better way to frame the argument, rather than as "made up conditions" or "your pain isn't significant enough to deserve pain meds -- they did without them 50 years ago after all", could have been to point out that there's a direct connection between the newness of a medication and how hard it's pitched towards doctors and hospitals. This is because newer drugs are still within proprietary stages, meaning other companies can't develop a cheaper generic option, and thus the developer makes more money from selling the same number of pills. This leads to people taking more medications that (unlike prozac, where we know the risk of psychosis and how low it is) have no longitudinal studies to determine the potential consequences of switching from an older drug, that's still working for the patient fairly well, to a newer drug that may "work better" and also may discovered in 15 years to cause an increased risk of cancer. This is an extremely common practice that you barely touched on and is far more emblematic of the problems in prescribing today compared to the examples you did use.
Focusing on relatively tiny case studies of worst case scenarios isn't very useful. "In rare cases, these side effects may be fatal." means exactly that -- it's a miniscule percentage and it's applicable to every medication simply because our biologies are all slightly different. It's more prevalent in heart medication than many others, for example, simply because of the type of alterations the medication is making... but for most people with moderate to serious conditions not taking heart medication isn't really an option. In the cases where it doesn't mean that corruption and/or graft is usually the cause and that's prevalent in all degrees of medical care, not only medication. You should look into medical supply companies and the conveyance of infectious disease through equipment designed in such a way that it's nearly impossible to fully sanitize it. It's a problem all over the medical field.
So, you have a very good core point but I think you went about arguing it in a poor way, one that not only sounds extremely judgmental (you spent a surprising amount of time focusing on taxes paying for these meds when most people who have insurance do so through their employers or privately) but doesn't even make pretend to demonstrate the other side of the issue, wherein some medications do a lot of good and worst-case side effects are exactly that. You also undercut your points by bringing up weak examples where strong ones definitely exist. And all but ignored one of the most significant flaws of the Big Pharma industry with the sales reps.
This isn't the quality I generally see from your work and this video isn't so old as to explain that fact. Perhaps an updated version that takes a broader view of the issue with more critical thinking and less value judgment wouldn't be amiss. All I know is that I agree with other comments: this take is a lot less objective than your usual fare.
That's a little bit too opinionated compared to other videos.
The difference between science video and a propaganda video is that you get the facts and sources, not the conclusions.
But anyway good job as always. Keep it up.
Waiting to see you among guys like CGP Grey or Kurzgesagt!
You're right and one thing I'm going to start doing is citing my sources from now on. Something I definitely should have done with this video. Thanks for the comments :). I try to make my videos scientifically sound but also ad my opinion/commentary - which obviously makes it much less scientific.
I thought about including them especially because this is a very evidence heavy video. But in the end I was too lazy. Most of it comes from either a documentary I watched called "American Addict." You can find it on YouTube for free. Other sources include some scientific journal I found online published by Harvard, some Wikipedia sourced stuff, and some news articles. Hope that helps, haha.
Community pharmacists are the health professionals most accessible to the public. They supply medicines in accordance with a prescription or, when legally permitted, sell them without a prescription. In addition to ensuring an accurate supply of appropriate products, their professional activities also cover counselling of patients at the time of dispensing of prescription and non-prescription drugs, drug information to health professionals, patients and the general public, and participation in health-promotion programmes. They maintain links with other health professionals in primary health care.