Common Medications That You Shouldn’t Be on for Long
‘Speed of Science’ — A Scandal Beyond Your Wildest Nightmare

[ad_1]
February 9, 2021, I published an article that clarified the medical and legal definitions of a “vaccine.” In the article, I noted that mRNA COVID-19 jabs did not meet those definitions, in part because they don’t prevent infection or spread. In reality, they’re experimental gene therapies. In July that year, The New York Times published a hit piece on me citing that February 9 article:1
“The article that appeared online on Feb. 9 began with a seemingly innocuous question about the legal definition of vaccines. Then over its next 3,400 words, it declared coronavirus vaccines were ‘a medical fraud’ and said the injections did not prevent infections, provide immunity or stop transmission of the disease.
Instead, the article claimed, the shots ‘alter your genetic coding, turning you into a viral protein factory that has no off-switch.’ Its assertions were easily disprovable …”
Pfizer Moved ‘at the Speed of Science’
Fast-forward to early October 2022, and my claims were officially confirmed during a COVID hearing in the European Parliament. Dutch member Rob Roos questioned Pfizer’s president of international developed markets, Janine Small, about whether Pfizer had in fact tested and confirmed that their mRNA jab would prevent transmission prior to its rollout.
As noted by Roos, the entire premise behind COVID shot mandates and vaccine passports was that by taking the shot, you would protect others, as it would prevent infection and spread of COVID-19. Small replied:
“No. We had to really move at the speed of science to understand what is happening in the market … and we had to do everything at risk.”2
As noted by Roos, “This means the COVID passport was based on a big lie. The only purpose of the COVID passport: forcing people to get vaccinated.” Roos added that he found this deception “shocking — even criminal.”3
In the video below, biologist and nurse teacher John Campbell, Ph.D., reviews this growing scandal. He points out that U.K. government officials emphatically assured the public that everything that was normally done in clinical trials for a vaccine was done for the COVID shots. Now we’re told that was not the case after all.
The question is why? According to Small, these basic trials were not done because they “had to move at the speed of science.” But just what does that mean? As noted by Campbell, these are “just words without meaning.” It’s complete nonsense.
Moreover, what does it mean to “do everything at risk”? Campbell admits he has no idea what that means. I don’t either, but were I to venture a guess, I’d guess it means they knowingly skipped certain testing even though they knew the risks of doing so.
Government and Media Promulgated a Blatant Lie
Over the past three years, mainstream media have promulgated the lie that the COVID shots will prevent infection and transmission, telling us that anyone who doesn’t get the shot is selfish at best, and at worst, a potential murderer at large. Anyone who refuses poses a serious biomedical threat to society, hence the need for heavy-handedness.
Alas, it was all a lie from the start. The frustrating part is that we’ve KNOWN for well over two years that the shots were never tested for transmission interruption, yet everyone in government and media insisted they would do just that.
In October 2020, Peter Doshi, associate editor of The BMJ, highlighted the fact that the trials were not designed to reveal whether the vaccines would prevent transmission, which is key if you want to end the pandemic. He wrote:4
“None of the trials currently under way are designed to detect a reduction in any serious outcome such as hospital admissions, use of intensive care, or deaths. Nor are the vaccines being studied to determine whether they can interrupt transmission of the virus.”
So, by October 2020, at the latest, it was clear that no studies had been done to determine whether the shots actually prevented transmission, which is a prerequisite for the claim that you’ll save the lives of others if you take it.
By then, Moderna had also admitted they were not testing its jab’s ability to prevent infection. Tal Zaks, chief medical officer at Moderna, stated that this kind of trial would require testing volunteers twice a week for long periods of time — a strategy he called “operationally untenable.”5
So, neither Pfizer nor Moderna had any clue whether their COVID shots would prevent transmission or spread, as that was never tested, yet with the aid of government officials and media, they led the public to believe they would. Below is just one example where Pfizer clearly obfuscated the truth.6 If stopping transmission was their “highest priority,” why didn’t they test and confirm that their shot was accomplishing this priority?
Similarly, in an Israeli interview7 (below), Bourla stated that “The efficacy of our vaccine in children is 80%.” The reporter asked him to clarify, “Are you talking about efficacy to prevent severe disease or to prevent infection?” and Bourla replied, “To prevent infection.” How could he say that when preventing infection has never been tested? Is that not evidence of fraud, caught on camera?
– Pfizer CEO: “The efficacy of our vaccine in children is 80%”
– Reporter: “Are you talking about efficacy to prevent severe disease or to prevent infection?”
– Pfizer CEO: “𝗧𝗼 𝗽𝗿𝗲𝘃𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗶𝗻𝗳𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻”
Need more evidence of fraud?pic.twitter.com/OsVDmmSVvH
— Dr. Eli David (@DrEliDavid) October 18, 2022
COVID Shots Have Been Fraudulently Marketed
As I stated in February 2021, the shots are a medical fraud. A true vaccine prevents infection; COVID shots don’t. Hence, they’ve also been fraudulently marketed. Governments around the world enabled this marketing fraud and media promulgated it.
As a result of mandating COVID shots and vaccine passports based on a blatant lie, millions have suffered potentially permanent harm and/or have died. Millions have also lost their jobs, forfeited careers and missed out on educational opportunities. This all happened because we DIDN’T follow the science.
Massive Conflicts of Interest Have Been Allowed
Why did government agencies go along with what was, to anyone with a microgram of critical thinking skills, an apparent fraud? Probably, because they’re in on it. As reported by investigative journalist Paul Thacker, the same PR company that serves Moderna and Pfizer also staffs the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s Division of Viral Diseases team:8
“Early last month [September 2022], CDC Director Rochelle P. Walensky endorsed recommendations by the CDC Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) for updated COVID-19 boosters from Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna.
‘This recommendation followed a comprehensive scientific evaluation and robust scientific discussion,’ Dr. Walensky said in a statement. ‘If you are eligible, there is no bad time to get your COVID-19 booster and I strongly encourage you to receive it’ …
[The] PR firm Weber Shandwick, which has long represented Pfizer and other pharmaceutical companies and began providing public relations support to Moderna sometime in 2020.
In an odd case of synchronicity — and let’s be honest, a whiff of undue influence — Weber Shandwick employees are also embedded at the CDC’s National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases (NCIRD), the CDC group that implements vaccine programs and oversees the work of ACIP [CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices] …
The CDC has refused to respond to questions explaining this apparent conflict … ‘[It] is irresponsible of CDC to issue a PR contract to Weber Shandwick, knowing that the firm also works for Moderna and Pfizer,’ emailed Public Citizen’s Craig Holman. ‘It raises legitimate questions of whose interests Weber Shandwick will put first — their private sector clients or the public’s interest at NCIRD.’”
Incidentally, Weber Shandwick was in 2016 found to have ghostwritten a drug study for Forest Pharmaceuticals — another unethical practice that has undermined the foundation of medical science for decades.
One PR Company, One Consistent Message
Weber Shandwick’s responsibilities at the CDC include but are not limited to “generating story ideas, distributing articles and conducting outreach to news, media and entertainment organizations” to boost vaccination rates.9 The company provides similar services to Moderna.
For example, it helped generate 7,000 news articles internationally after Moderna applied for emergency use authorization (EUA) for its jab.
In June 2022, Moderna announced a “cross-discipline team drawing on talent and expertise from Weber Shandwick” would “drive the brand’s narrative globally,” and “support Moderna in activating and engaging key internal and external audiences, including employees, consumers, health care providers, vaccine recipients and policymakers.”10
Considering the primary COVID jab makers have the same PR company as the CDC, is it any wonder that the messaging has been so consistently one-sided? As noted by Doshi in a recent interview on German television,11 mainstream media have consistently ignored COVID jab data and have “not done a good job in providing balanced coverage” about the shots.
“We’re not getting the information we need to make better choices and to have a more informed understanding of risk and benefit,” he told the interviewer, adding:12
“It was very unfortunate that from the beginning, what was presented to us by public health officials was a picture of great certainty … but the reality was that there were extremely important unknowns.
We entered a situation where essentially the stakes became too high to later present that uncertainty to people. I think that’s what set us off on the wrong foot. Public officials should have been a lot more forthright about the gaps in our knowledge.”
Reanalysis of Trial Data Confirms COVID Shot Dangers
In late September 2022, Doshi published a risk-benefit analysis focused on serious adverse events observed in Pfizer’s and Moderna’s COVID trials. Reanalysis of the data showed 1 in 800 who get a COVID shot suffers a serious injury. As detailed in Doshi’s paper:13
“Pfizer and Moderna mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 10.1 and 15.1 per 10,000 vaccinated over placebo baselines of 17.6 and 42.2 respectively.
Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated; risk ratio 1.43.
The Pfizer trial exhibited a 36 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … The Moderna trial exhibited a 6 % higher risk of serious adverse events in the vaccine group … Combined, there was a 16 % higher risk of serious adverse events in mRNA vaccine recipients …”
Doshi and his coauthors also concluded that the increase in adverse events from the shots surpassed the reduction in risk of being hospitalized with COVID-19. So, in short, the shots confer more harm than good.
Sen. Rand Paul Promises Investigation
A spokesperson for Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., replied to an inquiry by Thacker stating, “[T]hat CDC had a contract with the same PR firm representing the manufacturers of the COVID-19 vaccine raises serious concerns,” adding that “these conflicts of interest will be thoroughly investigated” by the Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and Pensions (HELP) — which oversees the CDC — sometime next year.
After the November midterms, Paul will be next in line as the top Republican on this committee. It’s well worth noting that, at bare minimum, this kind of conflict of interest should have been disclosed by both parties. At best, it should have been avoided altogether. The CDC did neither. It didn’t disclose its relationship with the PR firm and it didn’t prevent the conflict of interest from developing in the first place.
What Was the COVID Jab Push All About?
The rational take-home from all this is that the massive push to inject the global population with these experimental jabs was never about following science and protecting others.
It was always about promoting a false, invented narrative designed to allow for the implementation of a top-down directive to inject every person on the planet with a novel mRNA technology. This, in turn, brings up two central questions:
• Who’s at the top? — We don’t yet know. All we can say for sure is that they have a very powerful and global influence — powerful enough that government officials have willingly lied and sacrificed their own populations in an incredibly risky medical experiment.
• Why is injecting everyone with mRNA technology so important to the anonymous decision-makers? — Again, we don’t know, but it’s quite clear that there’s a reason for it, that it’s supposed to accomplish something.
As detailed in previous articles, the only rational reason for why the CDC is allowing COVID jab EUA’s for young children is because they’re assisting drug makers in their effort to obtain liability shielding by getting the shots onto the childhood vaccination schedule.
ACIP is poised to add COVID shots to the childhood vaccination schedule any day now,14 and once on the childhood schedule, vaccine makers will not be liable for injuries and deaths occurring from their shots, whether they occur in children or adults.
Also, remember that even though the U.S. Food and Drug Administration granted full approval to Pfizer’s Comirnaty COVID shot, Comirnaty was never released to the public. The Pfizer shot being given is still under EUA.
Why was Comirnaty never released? Probably because once the shot has full FDA approval, liability kicks in. It appears they’re trying to avoid liability by getting the EUA shot on the childhood schedule before Comirnaty is rolled out and starts injuring and killing people.
Now, if they’re concerned about liability, that means they know the shot is dangerous. And if they know it’s dangerous (which all available data clearly show it is), then why do they want every person on the planet to get it?
Following this line of questioning to its logical conclusion leads us to the shocking conclusion that even though we don’t know the reasons why, the injuries and deaths from these jabs are intentional.
Vaccine Makers Continue to Spread Lies
Despite Small’s unequivocally clear admission that Pfizer has not tested its COVID shot to ascertain whether it prevents transmission, Pfizer’s CEO still does not shy away from insinuating as much. Here’s what he tweeted out October 12, 2022.15 He’s not saying the shot has been confirmed to prevent COVID, but he insinuates that it does by saying the FDA authorized it for the prevention of COVID. This is also known as lying by omission.
Meanwhile, so-called fact checkers are trying to salvage Pfizer’s reputation by saying the company never actually stated the shot would stop transmission.16 That may be so, but government officials and media DID claim it would prevent both infection and spread, and Pfizer never corrected them, even as people were being fired and ostracized from society for not taking the jab.
If they were truly on the up-and-up, Pfizer officials would have clarified that the shot had not been tested to confirm it would prevent transmission, and until that was known, mandates and passports had no basis. Pfizer didn’t do that. Instead, they went along with it.
The Jabs Were Always To Be Pushed — ‘By Fair Means or Foul’
In conclusion, there’s no reason to trust government ever again, at least not in the U.S., which stands alone in pushing the jab on toddlers. (The reason for that, as mentioned earlier, is probably to get the jabs onto the childhood vaccination schedule, which will shield the vaccine makers from financial liability for harms.)
As noted by GB News host Neil Oliver in the video above, the very basis for COVID mandates or vaccine passports — that everyone had to get jabbed for the greater good, to protect others and help end the pandemic — was a deliberate lie from the start.
Many of us realized this early on, but our voices were drowned out as government, Big Tech and media pulled out all the stops, censoring anyone who told the truth. And all who have participated in this grand deception remain unrepentant to this day.
In a recent Twitter thread, a Twitter user named Daniel Hadas lays out an excellent description of what the last three years were really about:17
“The debate over whether, when, and to what extent lies were told about COVID vaccines preventing transmission misses a central point: No matter what the trial data showed, the vaccines were ALWAYS going to be pushed on entire populations, by fair means or foul.
Very early on, the COVID response was locked into a specific narrative. The world would lock down and stay safe, while brave scientists hammered away at a vaccine … You may recall that, in the first months of COVID, there was a lot of breathless talk about whether there would EVER be a vaccine.
This was all nonsense … Our authorities would not have adopted the strategy of lockdown-till-vaccine unless they were certain a vaccine could and would be made …
The purpose of sowing fear that there might never be a vaccine was to increase gratitude and enthusiasm when one came along. Indeed, every part of the early COVID response can be understood as (in part) pre-release marketing for the vaccine …
That’s why COVID risks for the young were wildly amplified. That’s why there was unending obfuscation of the central role of infection-conferred immunity both in protecting individuals and in ending the pandemic.
The plan was that the vaccine would be met by a perfectly primed population: immunologically naive, desperate to be released from lockdowns, terrified of COVID, eager to do the right thing, i.e. protect others through taking the shots.
Once so much effort had gone into priming, it is UNIMAGINABLE that authorities would have pivoted to telling us … ‘Well, actually, the vaccine’s safety profile is only so-so, efficacy is murky, and most people don’t need to worry about COVID anyway. So best most of you not take this … Sorry about the lockdowns.’
That was not in the script. So it was inevitable that the vaccine be pushed on everyone, and inevitable that the best arguments for universal vaccination would be used. Those arguments were: COVID is super-dangerous for YOU. Distrust in this vaccine is distrust in science. Refusing to get vaccinated is immoral, because you will infect others.
The veracity of these claims didn’t matter: they were in the script, and it was too late to deviate … Accordingly, the stage was also set for vaccine mandates.
None of this is conspiratorial. It is descriptive … Clarifying the details won’t alter the essence of the picture — The COVID response was determined by a script of vaccine salvation, and societies’ investment in that script was too deep for mere realities to divert its execution.”
The primary questions that still remain unanswered are: Why was this script created? What are its intended consequences? And, who created it? As mentioned earlier, the evidence suggests harm is an intended outcome — harm to our economy, our social order, our health, our life span and reproductive capacity.
As for “why,” we can just look at what has been accomplished so far. Assuming the consequences were intentional, the “why” appears to be wealth transfer, depopulation and the creation of a one world government.
[ad_2]
Source link
Dr. Pierre Kory – The War on Ivermectin
The Science Behind Molecular Hydrogen Tablets
Dr. Leland Stillman – How Conventional Medicine Kills, and What to Do About It
Advancements in Treating Psoriatic Arthritis
[ad_1]
By Jasvinder Singh, MD, as told to Sonya Collins
What attracts me to research into psoriatic arthritis and other rheumatic diseases is that the discoveries we make can improve function and quality of life for people. It can give them the opportunity to once again enjoy life fully, spend time with their loved ones, and do the other things that bring them pleasure.
I’m a professor of medicine and epidemiology at the University of Alabama at Birmingham, a physician at the Birmingham Veterans Affairs Medical Center, and I co-authored the guidelines for the treatment of psoriatic arthritis.
A Revolution in Treatment Options
Psoriatic arthritis is almost undergoing a revolution in terms of the treatments that are available.
Much of the current research is focused on targeted therapies. That’s where the field is going. In the last 5 to 10 years, we’ve gone from traditional disease-modifying drugs to very specific treatments that target specific drivers of psoriatic arthritis.
We have medications that have been around for a long time that can inhibit many cells that are active in psoriatic arthritis. We also have these newer targeted drugs that stop just one of these molecules, rather than all of them.
The advantage of the older medications is that we have experience with them and a lot of long-term data about their safety. The advantage of the new therapies, on the other hand, is that they’re more effective over time.
It’s possible, down the road, that we’ll find that the side effects of targeted drugs are more predictable than those of the older medications. Their side effects may also be more tolerable to people.
Most of the targeted drugs are given by injection just under the skin. Some of the most common side effects of medications, not just for psoriatic arthritis but in general, are headaches and gastrointestinal issues like nausea. Since targeted drugs don’t go through the digestive system, the side effects may be milder.
The more targeted approach may upset the balance of the body a little less than those other drugs do. We don’t know that for sure, though.
Several targeted drugs are already approved and available for patients to use. This has really expanded the horizon for doctors and their patients to choose treatments that may control the disease better.
Predicting a Response to Treatment
Another important discovery that’s emerged in the last 10 years is that certain factors affect whether the drugs work or fail. Many sophisticated studies have shown that both smoking and obesity reduce the effectiveness of these drugs and how long their effects last.
So there are things patients can do on their own, in combination with their medications, to better manage their disease.
But it’s still hard to predict who’ll respond to which medication.
Psoriatic arthritis is not a single type of disease. For the longest time, we’ve described it as five different types. Beyond that, there may be different drivers of the disease at play in any given patient. We don’t have specific tests to see what those are and which drug would work best. For now, we choose medications based on the potential benefits and risks and what the patient prefers.
More importantly, across the life span of a patient, those drivers of the disease might change. It’s possible that a couple of them are active and that we can suppress them for a while with the available drugs. Then, the patient ages, develops other illnesses, and something else begins to drive the disease.
So it’s hard to predict who’ll respond to which medication. That response can also change over time. But the more we use these newer drugs, the more we’ll learn about them.
A Well-Stocked Toolbox
If someone’s response to a medication does change, we switch them to another drug if we can. That’s why we want to keep lots of medication choices in our toolbox. This is a lifelong condition, and we want to have options available for when we need them. And I think we’re in a very good place for that right now.
Having said that, I’m happy to see strong and ongoing interest from drug companies in developing new products and additional targeted therapies, not just for psoriatic arthritis but for many autoimmune diseases.
This is only possible with clinical trials. I always encourage patients to consider participating in them. That’s how we learn and discover new therapies. There’s the potential — if the trial drug is safe and effective — that it benefits patients in the trial themselves.
We can’t promise that. But the benefit to other patients in the future, if the drug gets developed and approved, is immense. Because then the drug will be available to everybody.
[ad_2]
Source link
Psoriatic Arthritis Remission: One Man’s Story
[ad_1]
By Daniel Rose, as told to Evan Starkman
I got diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis almost 7 years ago, when I was 24. I was having back pain and stiffness in the morning, which was a nuisance. And I was getting really bad swelling in my feet and toes, which made it painful to walk sometimes. That was major. I had to plan my day around it. I also had to stop jogging and running, which was a bummer.
When I was around 28 or 29, fatigue began to kick in. I didn’t feel tired or sleepy. It felt more like my whole body wasn’t working properly. It was very hard to get out of bed and do chores. Even bathing could be hard. It interfered with a lot of my day-to-day activities, including work.
Sometimes I had to push through the pain and fatigue, even though I knew that I’d pay the price at some point later on. There were days when I’d be in a lot of pain and wouldn’t say a word. I learned how to hide it.
Some people who knew about my psoriatic arthritis didn’t understand how debilitating it can be. You can’t see arthritis, so it’s a bit of an invisible condition, especially if you don’t have psoriasis symptoms in noticeable areas. So people would tell me, “Hey, you look fine. Just go get some sleep.” And I’d be like, “I wish it was that easy. I don’t feel that great. It hurts.”
Or somebody would say, “But you look so young.” Or “Try yoga.” And I’m like, “I’ve tried it all. It’s just not a simple thing. It’s very complicated.”
The Road to Remission
My rheumatologist had me try quite a few medications, and it took a while to find ones that worked for me. I started with a JAK inhibitor in pill form. Then I moved on to biologic injections. I tried about four of them.
My skin improved tremendously, and my psoriasis has been clear for almost 2 years now. But the arthritis component was the hardest part to resolve. I was terribly afraid not only of joint damage, but also not having any kind of relief. It was truly terrifying.
It was also isolating, in the sense of not knowing people who could relate. Most people my age don’t know about copays and infusions and what a rheumatologist is, bloodwork, and navigating the insurance aspect and learning about medications. It’s overwhelming.
But eventually the treatments started to help. I got into remission on and off. And in late 2021, I started getting a biologic infusion that made a huge difference, once my rheumatologist adjusted the dosage. I began to have less joint pain, and my fatigue lifted, too. This is probably the longest I’ve been in remission.
I honestly feel like my old self again. I still need to take it easy some days. But I feel like I have the energy and the freedom to do things that I wouldn’t have been able to do before. I anticipate traveling a lot more. I’m also able to work more hours, so I can put more money in my pocket.
It took a while, but I’m really happy that I found the right treatment plan for me.
Strategies That Helped Me
Everybody’s different. But there a few things I’d recommend to someone who’s newly diagnosed with psoriatic arthritis.
First would be to find support. It’s so important to find people who can relate to what you’re going through. It’s a little bit harder to get support in person, partly because of COVID. But there are many support groups you can join online. You may like one more than another, so try a few.
Learn as much as you can about psoriatic arthritis, too. I did a lot of research to understand what was going on with my body, how to explain psoriatic arthritis to people in my life, and ways to speak up to my rheumatologist about my symptoms.
Make notes on how you’re feeling day to day. I keep a record in a little planner book. I write down my symptoms and the date, my pain levels, and what I did that day. That way I can show my rheumatologist and ask, “Hey, is this a pattern?”
It gives you a better handle visually of what’s going on. And it’s a tremendous resource for a rheumatologist to better understand how you’re doing. I’ve also noticed that doctors seem to take you a bit more seriously when you take the time to write things down, including questions for your checkups.
Steps like these can improve your odds of getting the help you need.
[ad_2]
Source link
Living Your Best Life With Psoriatic Arthritis
[ad_1]
By Brenda Kong, as told to Shishira Sreenivas
I developed psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis (PsA) at the same time when I was 12 years old. I’m 41 now. My psoriasis diagnosis was easy, but the PsA diagnosis was not. Because I played sports as a teenager, doctors attributed my aches and pains to that. Unfortunately, I wasn’t fully diagnosed until I was 21.
By then, we couldn’t turn back time on all the joint mutilation I already had. For example, something that had bothered me since I was 12 was my middle finger joint on my left hand. I said, “Hey, this is really bad. It shouldn’t be this swollen for this long.” But I kept being told, “You’re playing too much sports,” and “If you rest it and ice it, It’ll be fine.”
It’s not fine. It became my first mutilated joint. Now I literally have full-body arthritis, from my jawline all the way down to my toes.
The Hardest Time
My late teens into my early 20s was the hardest time for me. When I was a college student, 18 years old, I tried out for the school’s volleyball team. But because of my pain, I never got to play. The stress I had after starting college was horrible. It all just went from 0 to 60. And the nature of PsA is that it responds to stress.
Most of my joint damage happened when I was between the ages of 18 and 20. At times, I couldn’t get out of bed. I couldn’t go downstairs without gripping the handrails. I wanted to go clubbing, wear heels, and all of that. I didn’t get to do that.
When I was around 21, both my psoriasis and PsA flared up and I was bedridden for 2 months. I had to use a wheelchair or cane to move. I went in and out of the hospital around three times in 3 weeks because we couldn’t regulate my body temperature. The inflammation was everywhere. I couldn’t even make a fist.
At the time, I very much hated my life. I’d never even heard of a rheumatologist until finally, a dermatologist who was treating my psoriasis urged me to see one.
Find the Right Rheumatologist
I think my biggest regret was not getting to a rheumatologist sooner. I could have taken care of a lot of the joint pain that later on became damage.
In fact, my advice for anyone else going through this would be to see a rheumatologist — not just any doctor — as soon as you can. Also, be consistent about seeing your doctor.
I actually went through three rheumatologists before I found one that really clicked. The first one, who diagnosed me, I just didn’t like very much. The second one didn’t take my insurance. But the third one, I loved. He was my rheumatologist up until I lost my insurance a few years ago and had to switch.
The first thing that rheumatologist prescribed for me was a steroid. It was a very strong steroid.
The first time I took it, I fell asleep on the couch because I was so tired. When I woke up, I sat up on the couch, then put my legs down and stood up. I didn’t even register how easy it was. The drugs had reduced my inflammation that much. I didn’t take deep breaths and brace myself as I usually did. I thought, “Oh my God! What just happened?”
But my biggest improvement didn’t come until a year and a half later, when my doctor started me on biologics.
Try Different Treatment Options
The first time took a biologic for PsA, I was around 24. I’d just bounce out of bed. I was like, “What are we doing?” “Where are going?” I just wanted to go do something, because I was able to. My friends and I went traveling. We went to Las Vegas six times in one year just to do it. My skin was good and my joints were amazing.
This was my first biologic for the arthritis, but my third overall. I’d tried others for my skin only and my joints only. But this worked for both. I went from being covered in psoriasis, barely able to walk, using a wheelchair, and taking 1,800 milligrams of ibuprofen daily to not needing painkillers at all.
I’ve used a number of biologics since. Funny enough, I’m now using that first biologic I took for my psoriatic arthritis. I got back on it 3 years ago when my arthritis was getting pretty bad again.
I’ve also tried complementary treatments like yoga and meditation in addition to the biologic. Also things like diet — losing weight just gave me a lot less to carry around.
Even on a biologic, you can have a flare-up. And there’s always a fear that your treatment will stop helping you. That does happen with biologics. After a certain point, it may lose efficacy and you have to figure out a new treatment.
If this biologic ever stops working for me, I would take the steps to try to find another one. I know how bad my body can be and how painful it can be without medication.
Manage Your Stress
Stress is a major contributor to PsA. So mental health is a big thing for me. Now when I have a flare-up, I actually relax a lot more. I know that if I stress out about it, it’s going to be worse for me.
I do mental health exercises now. This helps keep me from overthinking, going down rabbit holes, and stressing myself out like I’ve done before.
When I was in my early 30s, I told myself that I couldn’t keep doing that. So I started therapy and made managing stress part of my routine. I started doing calming meditation exercises. I started doing yoga. Even now, when I feel really stiff, I sit and do some light yoga poses until I can function a little bit more.
It’s impossible to be stress-free. But now I do things to help manage it, and I have a much better mental outlook.
Try Activities That Make You Happy
In my early 20s, I couldn’t cook because my hands hurt so much. Now I can. I do hand exercises to keep my hands loose and happy.
I cook massive amounts of food when I need to feel better. I just get in the kitchen, I turn on music, and I don’t talk to anyone. No one talks to me. Everyone in my house knows this. I stay in the kitchen and get all my frustrations out, and it always turns out beautifully. I redirect so much of my emotion and stress into cooking.
The psoriatic arthritis life is a roller coaster, for sure. There are going to be many highs and there are going to be many lows, unfortunately. You just have to focus on the highs, and you’ll get through the lows.
[ad_2]
Source link
What’s the Best Psoriatic Arthritis Treatment for You?
[ad_1]
By Delamo Bekele, MBBS, as told to Alexandra Benisek
With psoriatic arthritis, each person’s symptoms and situation are unique. Your rheumatologist will work with you to find a treatment plan that’s tailored to you specifically, rather than a “one-size-fits-all” approach.
Before starting treatment for psoriatic arthritis, doctors do a full evaluation of each patient. We look to see if they have joint involvement, spine involvement, nail or skin disease, and more. Once that’s done, we come up with a medication regimen as well as nondrug ways to target your specific symptoms.
Usually, we start with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) or other anti-inflammatory medications. Then, there’s usually some form of immunosuppressive medication — drugs that keep an overactive immune system in check. Finally, we explore treatments like exercise, physical therapy, and weight loss, if needed.
Patient education is also important. Part of that is learning what the goal of treatment is, which is remission, meaning your disease is not active and you have no symptoms.
What Treatments Are Available?
There are several excellent treatments out there. The most powerful are the biologic medications, which include TNF inhibitors as well as other types. There’s also oral medication such as methotrexate, one of the standard medications for psoriatic arthritis.
Some people are interested in trying other joint-protective medications that haven’t been scientifically proven yet. We can use these in addition to their main medication to control inflammation, but not as the only therapy.
Then there are interleukin-17 (IL-17A) inhibitors; treatments for refractory psoriatic arthritis; and JAK inhibitors, which are oral medications. Newer drugs are also being explored.
Sometimes, patients need additional pain medication. But we try to stay away from opiates. We may prescribe things like duloxetine or tramadol.
How Can You Maximize the Effectiveness of Your Treatment?
What you need to do to make the most of your treatment depends partly on your particular treatment plan. But some basics include:
Keep your doctor updated. Most psoriatic arthritis treatments, other than anti-inflammatory medications, suppress your immune system and can also affect different organs. Let your doctor know any time you start any new medications to make sure there’s no interaction.
Also, limit the use of supplements, other drugs, and even alcohol. With certain medications, like methotrexate, you should avoid them completely.
Stay on top of vaccinations. And with COVID-19, try to reduce your risk of exposure. Get vaccinated against specific infections, such as flu and pneumonia, if you’re taking a medication that affects your immune system.
Quit smoking. This may not only help your medications work better, but will also improve your cardiovascular health in general.
Weight reduction. If you’re overweight, this is very important. That’s not just because it decreases the load on your joints. Excess weight can also mean you don’t respond as well to medication. Losing weight reduces your risk of complications from psoriatic arthritis, too.
Your exercise plan should focus on weight loss and strengthening muscles, including your core. We recommend low-impact cardio exercises like walking, cycling, elliptical machines, and pool exercise, especially if you have serious hip, back, or foot pain. Avoid higher-impact activities like running on a treadmill at high speeds or running outdoors. These sometimes make symptoms worse.
Stick to your treatment plan. To get the full benefits, carefully follow your doctor’s instructions for your medications. Several studies have shown that if patients don’t do this, they don’t respond well to treatment. And usually, if you don’t respond to treatment at first, it’s harder to get your symptoms under control over time.
Keep track of your symptoms. See your doctor regularly, not just a few times a year. Also, assess how you feel every time you check your pain, compared to when your symptoms were at their best.
Ask yourself:
- Am I stiff in the morning?
- Am I waking up at night with pain?
- Am I getting pain in areas that didn’t hurt in the past?
Your answers are signs of whether your treatments are working. If you notice a change, don’t wait until your next appointment. Tell your doctor as soon as possible.
Why Some Treatments May Not Work for You
Treatment is different for each person for lots of reasons. It depends first on what you’ve tried before and how serious your psoriatic arthritis is.
For example, one person’s psoriatic arthritis may only involve their left wrist and one finger on their right hand. They might need only a little bit of methotrexate to get it under control. They may go into remission over time and then stop medication altogether.
But another person may have psoriatic arthritis that affects most of the joints in their body. They could go through 10 different medications before finding one that’s effective. We can’t do tests to predict which medication will work for a specific patient.
Because of this, it’s important to understand how these medications work and how long it may take for them to work, and to then have follow-ups with your prescribing rheumatologist.
For example, we don’t want to try a medication for a year to see if there are benefits, then try to change your treatment plan. Instead, we want to keep adding medications or making subtle changes until you get to the point where your symptoms are inactive or under control.
If you try a couple of treatments and don’t see a response, you’ll work with your rheumatologist and other doctors to find a more comprehensive plan that’s effective.
You may try combination therapy, which means taking more than one medicine at a time. Your doctor might do this if you have very active psoriatic arthritis. But we have to be careful with this approach. Some medications can’t be combined because of the risk of infection. We don’t usually combine two different biologic medications.
It’s also important to consider each patient’s preferences. You have to inject yourself with some of the medications, so people with needle phobias won’t prefer those. If this method isn’t doable, there are a couple of medications you get by infusion (through an IV).
Or a patient may have a busy work schedule, and they’re not able to go in for an infusion every couple of weeks. Pills may be better for them.
That’s the whole point of tailoring treatment. We have choices, not just based on the science, but also based on what’s practical and preferable for each patient.
[ad_2]
Source link








