Telmisartan! Are you fooling me again?
Telmisartan! This latest in the chain of drugs—an angiotensin II receptor blocker (ARB)—that is purportedly causing less side effects! Or is it? It’s a drug that doctors are beginning to favor because the old but very, very popular companion (ACE1 inhibitors, an old “faithful” among doctors who prescribed them) of many a heart, stroke, diabetic or kidney patients is not acceptable anymore. Reason for this change in prescription is: ACE inhibitors have caused a terrible cough that can come and go; often, unnoticed or less-noticed undesirable effects that also accompany consumers of these drugs are played down. But you say, “Wasn’t this ‘side effects, not to worry’ attitude, and probably market forces what sprang ACE inhibitors into prominence in the first place? Now why move to another drug when the first “works?”
Is it really only in the name of progress that the switch is being done? The manufacturer says, ‘Yes.’ Of course, manufacturers will always tend to say that, especially when it comes to boosting the sale of their products in question, be they new or existing. (But God only knows the whole truth!)
Changing tactics again? You judge for yourself!
ACE inhibitors have been used to lower high blood pressure (hypertension). “Tell me, isn’t this telmisartan drug, a drug that has been traditionally used to lower hypertension, too?” you ask.
Yes, but a study conducted in Singapore involving 6,000 patients found that it reduces the risk of suffering and dying from cardiovascular death, heart attack or stroke in high-risk cardiovascular patients by 13% over 5 years. This is one of a series of studies, I think, that was most likely financed by the manufacturer itself. If that be so, with all due respect, wouldn't that bring the reliability of the studies into question?
'"…We have followed almost 50,000 telmisartan patients in clinical trials in the last 5 years, and now have experience from daily use of telmisartan summing up to 25 million patient years all over the world. This makes the medication one of the best-researched cardiovascular drugs with an outstanding efficacy and safety/tolerability profile," commented Dr Andreas Barner, vice-chairman of the Board of Managing Directors of Boehringer Ingelheim, responsible for Research, Development and Medicine.'2 Efficacy, maybe. But as for safety or tolerability, questionable! Five years of study is simply not long enough to determine much worse possible side effects like kidney failure and liver over-toxicity, which can lead to liver cancer. The liver and/or the kidneys are usually two organs doomed to fail or malfunction when it comes to perpetually sorting out medications besides other toxins, or “garbaz” (as I would call them), since they are detoxing or degarbazing organs that have been subjected to constant overloading and/or abuse!
So certain experts are starting to recommend or prescribe this old drug for a new use, to help patients. Does it sound to you like good entrepreneurship or marketing skill? But will it really help patients in the medium to long term? Is telmisartan really safer than the likes of it, as claimed by these experts? This remains to be seen. I can be sure; telmisartan will be surpassed by some new drug again! And similar reason(s) will be given, yes, again (this is my prediction).
Side effects of ACE-inhibitors include skin rash (with or without itching); swelling of the head or face; joint pain; edema or swelling in the mouth, face, hands or feet; fainting (syncope); jaundice (rare, but serious); difficulty swallowing or breathing; loss of taste; allergic reaction (e.g., respiratory congestion, sneezing, itching or skin rashes); headache; vomiting; abnormally fast heartbeat (tachycardia); diarrhea; abdominal pain/ cramps/ distention/ swelling (with or without nausea or vomiting); drowsiness, weakness or fatigue; chest pain; nausea or upset stomach; renal (kidney) failure, or kidney function decline; etc.
Approved by the FDA in November of 2000, the side effects of telmisartan may include respiratory tract infection, back pain, sinus inflammation, diarrhea, fever, headaches, dizziness, rash, fatigue/ tiredness, little or no urine, appetite loss, muscle pain/weakness, nausea and vomiting, jaundice, change in heart rhythm, etc.
The above lists of side effects are by no means complete; neither does the shortness or the length of list indicate one is necessarily better than the other. It’s a question of which one drug-takers prefer to have—or in most cases, which one their doctors prefer to prescribe to them—as opposed to the other.
Despite the higher costs involved, some users are reportedly pleased with the “new” drug, which got rid of their persistent symptom(s) that result from taking the previous. “What a good thing it (the “new” thing) is!” they heave a sigh of relief. But, aren’t they “robbing Peter to pay Paul” all the same? By that phrase, I mean: stopping one problem at the expense of another part of your body; the manifestation(s) of the new drug may be hidden now, but they will surely resurface; it’s a question of time. They haven’t escaped from the vicious cycle, have they? Is it not merely transferring one set of undesirable effects to another, perhaps even more harmful 3 (we don’t know at this stage, really!), set of unwanted effects? Call this advancement? Who do we really listen to? Well, might I suggest you first try this potion, “Tell me Lord God” it’s filled with power; first thing that you’ll get is the pure wisdom to do the right thing! But don't stop there. Act upon it!
How do you people who are in effect guinea pigs for one drug after another really feel? Sorry about the term used. But in effect, you are under some trial run all the time when you just take whatever is being given; and then you change, often unquestionably, when new drugs are recommended. Ok, I know the drugs keep you functional, for one. Given it’s saved your life once or even twice! And, how thankful you must have been, I understand that. You may also say, “There’s no other choice!” My response to that remark is: “Is that really so? Have you further investigated for your OWN self to find out if there’s really no other choice? Plain slothfulness or pure ignorance doesn’t get one anywhere!” Apart from improved function of body part(s) or organ(s), have you ever questioned the futility of it all? I wonder if you ever asked yourself, “Have I been, or am I really being, fooled around?” “Have I done my best to explore options to get me out of the rut?” 4
Can you guess what is going to be the next popular medication to replace telmisartan? Maybe, it’ll be sartankikmiass! (who knows!) or whatever!
Is drug switching the real solution to the problem of hundreds of millions of sufferers who are enduring the side effects, many on a daily basis? Aren’t all drugs toxic (I’d say they are; refer to LD505)? Don’t all drugs ultimately lead one to a slow but sure, earlier-than-anticipated death6, which is similar to the case of the animals tested in the laboratory (wherein experimenters probably stop killing the animals after 50% of the population have died7); nevertheless, the animals die slow and painful deaths, much to the anger of some animal rights groups8)? Strength of toxicity is one thing; bio-accumulation of toxins (which usually occurs in the organs, which are where the accumulated toxins are most ruinous) is quite another matter to be contended with.
Telmisartan! Are you credible this time, or are you fooling me again?
Ah, I started you thinking, didn’t I? Write me, Raymond Chee, at info@FocusOnTotalHealth.net with comments or queries. I welcome them.
1 Angiotensin-converting enzyme
2 http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=119861
3 Could this resemble the parable told of a house delivered of an evil spirit, but because it was not quickly occupied by the right occupants, the same spirit came back with seven other spirits more wicked than itself to haunt it again (Matthew 12:43-45)? The end result? You imagine yourself!
4 Read more…
5 “In toxicology, the median lethal dose, LD50(abbreviation for “Lethal Dose, 50%”), or LCt50 (Lethal Concentration & Time) of a toxic substance or radiation is the dose required to kill half the members of a tested population” –Wikipedia.com. Even Vitamin C, a supposedly “health” food that can be purchased at all health stores, can be toxic; it depends on the dosage for the individual—medium to long-term continued usage of small doses of Vitamin C should be questioned, let alone large doses of it.
6 Or, PPM in Malay or Indonesian (=Perlahan Perlahan Mati)
7 Usually experts or doctors would stop when patients can’t handle a drug anymore, or when they discover that the revealed outcome(s) of continued usage are simply too unbearable for, or are simply too risky for them to carry on recommending or prescribing the same drug to, the patient. A change of medication, understandably, then becomes essential. Does this seem like a likely scenario for the change of preference to telmisartan? Maybe it’s due to market forces drawing them irresistibly to switch drugs!
8 If only they’d rise to defend the rights of hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of human beings who yearly die ignorantly as a result of continuous drug intake for many years! No doubt, countless have died in vain! Are humans more valuable, or animals?
posted by Ray Chee @ 8:43 AM
0 Comments
