There are no "side" effects.  Just as there are no "weeds".  Just unwanted plants and unwanted effects.  We must stop using the term "side" effects as if they don't belong to the drug and only happen in and to a select few.  ALL drug effects must be considered a lot like "sensitivity" to gluten, nicotine, caffeine, dairy and other non-foods with wich our ancestors didn't evolve.  The effects of these non-foods affect ALL people.  To some the effects are immediate and sometimes deadly.  For others it may take a lifetime to accumelate and to die insiduously.  But they are never benign.   And should never be labeled "side" effects.  Drugs have effects - wether the metabolites kill you or just make you one of the walking wounded.

Dr. Van Beveren

Clinical Physiologist &

Nutritional Biochemist 

---

HEALTH INTEGRATION CENTER
Dr. Van Beveren, Lynn Krokenberger, RN
Leslie Lazaroff, D.O. (Consultant)
952 Route 518
Skillman, NJ 08558
609-924-7337 Voice
609-924-7828 Fax

avanbeveren:

There are no "side" effects.  Just as there are no "weeds".  Just unwanted plants and unwanted effects.  We must stop using the term "side" effects as if they don't belong to the drug and only happen in and to a select few.  ALL drug effects must be considered a lot like "sensitivity" to gluten, nicotine, caffeine, dairy and other non-foods with wich our ancestors didn't evolve. 

Greetings, Dr Van Beveren.

That's an interesting point, change the terminology from side effects to unwanted effects (a term already in use-others include adverse events, adverse effects, toxic effects, teratogenic effects, adverse reactions, etc) .  Of course, they mean the same thing to a larege degree.  Do you think a change in terminology would improve medical treatment?

All known drug effects, of course, are taken into consideration when prescribing medicines.  Obviously, it takes medical training and clinical experience to recognise adverse effects when they occur.

Allow me to put my ha'pence worth in here by saying, lots of change but no improvement! Why not remain with the popular terminology that everyone understands, even GPs! Why, indeed, the desire for change?

Agreed Jennings.  Surely all these extra terms are redundant (unless to describe a specific problem?)

"Side effect" is hardly a confusing concept.

I agree.  It's really all just a marketing ploy.  You have a drug and it mainstream effects, and then it's other effects.  But who would want to take something to cause dizziness or headache, hence it's a side effect.

Don't believe me?  Ok.  You've heard of the term withdrawal effects right.  It's what happens when you come off an addictive drug, street or legal. Now, because of the stigma connected with the term "withdrawal" effects (sounds like you're quitting heroin or something) these effects in medical drugs are now call "discontinuation" symptoms.  Oh that sounds a lot nicer... and with no heroin stigma. Plus it sound more "normal", because you are discontinuing the drug.

It might seem only like a mild change to some of you, why make a big deal about it.  But a lot of power is held in words, and people will continue to slightly tweak and tweak terms so they sound more flowery.
 

There are side-effects and there are weeds - some drugs are used only for their side-effects and many weeds are used for their beneficial & therapeutic properties - why waste energy trying to change common terminology there really are more important things to do in life. It doesn't matter what you call side effects or weeds - people understand - as far as they can - the implications of either term - and thats all that matters.

 

Jane