Medicine

Medicines almost always have two names: the brand name, and the generic name. Tylenol is the brand name for a medicine containing acetaminophen, and Motrin is a brand name for a medicine containing ibuprofen. I always try to learn the generic name, because the same active ingredient can often be found in different brands, and I like to know what exactly I'm getting. I started learning generic names so I could identify whether store brands contain the same medicine as the more expensive brands, but I have found it useful in other cases as well. For example, there are various kinds of pain medications, most of which contain some combination of acetaminophen, ibuprofen, and aspirin; by looking at the exact contents, I can tell what I am actually getting.

Another type of medication with a confusing variety of choices are antihistamines and decongestants (which are often combined in the same pill). The only one that ever seemed to work for me was Actifed, but one of its active ingredients, pseudophedrine, was placed under restriction a few years ago because people were converting it into methamphetamine. Actifed was unavailable for a while, and then, when it came back, it didn't have the same effect on me. I discovered that, contrary to what one would expect, they had done away not only with the pseudophedrine (the decongestant), but also with the triprolidine (the antihistamine), and were marketing a completely different medicine under the same name. It didn't take long to figure out that pseudophedrine was not the drug that was helping me, but I couldn't find triprolidine anywhere until a kind pharmacist special ordered some. It's marketed under a couple of different names, and it's actually very cheap, but you won't find it in any store that I've seen.

As a side note, I would like to say that this is a perfect example of unwanted government interference. I am ambivalent about the war on drugs, but I am clear on one thing: I don't want my right to an effective medicine to be curtailed because some people are turning a beneficial chemical into something that they can get high on.

“Anybody gone into Whole Foods lately and see what they charge for arugula?” --Barack Obama (link)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Country Music

I noticed a long time ago that there isn't much difference between the sound of country music and rock music nowadays. If I'm surfing my radio and I come to a station playing jazz, classical, or rap, I recognize it right away; but if I come to a country or rock station, I often can't tell which it is until the song is half over. Country songs often have screaming guitars that would fit equally well in a hard rock song, and only a minority have a recognizably country instrument such as a fiddle or a banjo. All the same, no one could listen to a country music station for more than a few minutes without realizing that it is definitely not a rock station. What are the differences? There are some stylistic differences. Country songs are more likely to have a boogey beat or certain western-sounding bass lines. They also tend to be more formulaic: if you can't predict how a country song ends, you probably don't listen to much country music. But those things aren'
Read more

Science and Philosophy, Part I: Hume and Popper

I've been listening to a lecture series on philosophy recently, and, even though I haven't gotten past the Greeks yet, it has reminded me of a number of issues that trouble me about science. I want to take the opportunity to express my concerns here. Along the way, I will probably oversimplify philosophy a great deal -- not on purpose, but rather because I have only a simplistic understanding of it. I welcome responses to clear up my misconceptions. One of my issues with science is the famous idea of Karl Popper that it can never establish positive claims, only falsify wrong ones. The history of this goes back to David Hume, the 18th century Scottish sceptic. He shook up the philosophical world by claiming that science could never prove anything through induction -- that is, drawing conclusions about physical laws based on observations. The classic illustration is the sun's rising. Even though the sun has risen every day for our whole lives, and for countless human l
Read more

Three stages in liberal denial of media bias

I was 15 years old in 1984, and an avid follower of politics and the news. When Reagan was making his decision whether to run for re-election, I was opposed to it. It wasn't that I didn't like Reagan; I loved him. But I was convinced that he wouldn't stand a chance in the election, and I didn't want to see him lose. Of course, he went on to win one of the most lopsided elections in history. Why was I so wrong? Because I had been watching network news (the only kind, back then) and the coverage was overwhelmingly negative. Since that time, I have watched with disbelief as liberals have criticized Fox News as unbalanced, culminating in the amazing spectacle of the president himself declaring that Fox is not a legitimate source of journalism. Meanwhile, these same liberals refuse to acknowledge that ABC, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, CNN, etc. (ad nauseum) have any bias of their own. What makes this all the more incredible is that a number of studies have been produced demonstr
Read more