SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
El Reg reports:
Reported in The Lancet, the study [on paracetamol also known as acetaminophen] funded by the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia and pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline Australia ran for over three years and involved "a multicentre, double-dummy, randomised, placebo controlled trial across 235 primary care centres in Sydney."
The study saw some patients given regular doses paracetamol, others told to take the drug when in pain and a third group handed placebos. Those given paracetamol, in either mode, reported no less pain than those taking placebos. Nor did sugar-pill-poppers recover from their ailments more slowly.
The authors therefore "question the universal endorsement of paracetamol in this patient group."
In this interview the study's leader Professor Chris Maher even questions whether Paracetamol can be considered a pain-killer.
"The jury is out" on whether the drug lessens pain, Professor Maher says about two minutes into the interview.
So, what does work? Don't just lay there; for starters, get up and MOVE AROUND.
(Score: 2) by evilviper on Saturday July 26 2014, @04:30AM
That doesn't make any sense. It's one of the safest painkiller and NSAID-type drugs out there. Vastly safer than Tylenol. There's the risk of bleeding from excessive use, and a small chance of Reyes, but little else to be concerned with.
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday July 26 2014, @06:05AM
May not make any sense, but still, that claim is out there:
http://www.medicalprogresstoday.com/spotlight/spotlight_indarchive.php?id=1039 [medicalprogresstoday.com]
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/07/no-refills/308133/ [theatlantic.com]
About the only time the FDA did vote on Aspirin they voted no.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/785037 [medscape.com]
Aspirin never had to undergo FDA approval.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by evilviper on Saturday July 26 2014, @06:53AM
First link says drug companies would have developed Aspirin into more-specific drugs, and its current form would never have been up for approval by the FDA, he doesn't say the FDA would reject it.
Second link talks about how specific animals used for testing are more prone to side effects from aspirin than people, and MAY have failed there, instead of going further. It's also an extremely biased and slanted piece, doing mindless FDA-bashing.
Third link is paywalled for me, but I found another source which explains the rejection as:
"the data was simply insufficient to measure any reduction in fatal heart attacks. Hence, the panel members - while several expressed the sentiment that aspirin clearly is beneficial - voted "no" to Bayer's petition." http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/heartfailure/a/FDAaspirin.htm [about.com]
Hydrogen cyanide is a delicious and necessary part of the human diet.