- Anti-retrovirals, when faced with an persistent (and clearly identified) infection that causes problems
- Same with antibiotics for bacterial infections
- Same with anti-fungals for fungal infections
- Depending on the cancer – and carefully considering the options – I would be willing to take anti-cancer
- I will take any recommended vaccines against deadly child disease like the usual suspects (MMR, Polio, and the like)
- I would take vaccines against "new" diseases if there is an outbreak (or real risk of an outbreak) in my country, and if the disease has severe health outcomes (e.g. SARS)
- I would take insulin if I had type 1 diabetes (T1DM)
- I will not take heart disease or vascular medication, especially "preventive" disasters like statins (I'm already fatigued from dairy, I don't need pharma to help with that. And anyway what is wrong with trying out Paleo?)
- I will not take any medicals against diabetes, hypertension, obesity or the like (do Paleo instead, duh!)
- I will not take vaccines against the latest hyped virus (e.g. a repeat of the bird flu disaster)
- I will not take anti-depressives (cf. David Healy)
But then there quite a few "gray areas". The influenza vaccine? If I knew.
That all got me thinking, would it possible to have a sort of guidance for this? Well, I came up with this, were I would more readly trust pharma:
- The disease needs to have clearly defined adverse outcomes (e.g. like HIV/AIDS), so doctors can not substitute the reality of a disease with their narrative
- The disease has to affect clearly many who are diagnosed with it, and not be some "risk number"
- The drug has to have clearly visible efficiency (e.g. like insulin for T1DM), that does not does not rely on statistical analysis to show efficiency (e.g. definitely not like statins)