Reddit mentions: The best pharmaceutical drug guides

We found 21 Reddit comments discussing the best pharmaceutical drug guides. We ran sentiment analysis on each of these comments to determine how redditors feel about different products. We found 12 products and ranked them based on the amount of positive reactions they received. Here are the top 20.

1. Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered (Drug Policy Classics Reprints Series Number 1)

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Psychedelic Drugs Reconsidered (Drug Policy Classics Reprints Series Number 1)
Specs:
Height1.14 Inches
Length9.18 Inches
Weight1.5 pounds
Width5.99 Inches
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

2. Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care
Specs:
Height10.75 Inches
Length8.5 Inches
Weight5.15 Pounds
Width2 Inches
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

3. Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care

Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care
Specs:
Height10.75 Inches
Length8.5 Inches
Width2.25 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

6. Nursing2014 Drug Handbook (Nursing Drug Handbook)

Nursing2014 Drug Handbook (Nursing Drug Handbook)
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Weight2.20021337476 Pounds
Width2 Inches
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

7. Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care

    Features:
  • Used Book in Good Condition
Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs: An Interactive Approach to Self-Care
Specs:
Height11 Inches
Length8.75 Inches
Weight5.05 Pounds
Width2.25 Inches
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

9. Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses

Used Book in Good Condition
Davis's Drug Guide for Nurses
Specs:
Height8.5 Inches
Length5.5 Inches
Weight2.1495070545 Pounds
Width1.5 Inches
Release dateJune 2012
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

11. Physicians' Desk Reference, 66th Edition

Physicians' Desk Reference, 66th Edition
Specs:
Height12 Inches
Length9.5 Inches
Weight6.45 Pounds
Width3 Inches
▼ Read Reddit mentions

12. Physicians' Desk Reference 2001: Pdr (Physicians' Desk Reference (Pdr))

Used Book in Good Condition
Physicians' Desk Reference 2001: Pdr (Physicians' Desk Reference (Pdr))
Specs:
Height12 inches
Length3 inches
Weight9.37846462548 pounds
Width9.25 inches
Number of items1
▼ Read Reddit mentions

🎓 Reddit experts on pharmaceutical drug guides

The comments and opinions expressed on this page are written exclusively by redditors. To provide you with the most relevant data, we sourced opinions from the most knowledgeable Reddit users based the total number of upvotes and downvotes received across comments on subreddits where pharmaceutical drug guides are discussed. For your reference and for the sake of transparency, here are the specialists whose opinions mattered the most in our ranking.
Total score: 33
Number of comments: 6
Relevant subreddits: 2
Total score: 10
Number of comments: 2
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 6
Number of comments: 2
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 6
Number of comments: 2
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 4
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 3
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 2
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 1
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 1
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1
Total score: 1
Number of comments: 1
Relevant subreddits: 1

idea-bulb Interested in what Redditors like? Check out our Shuffle feature

Shuffle: random products popular on Reddit

Top Reddit comments about Pharmaceutical Drug Guides:

u/[deleted] · 6 pointsr/psychology

Excuse me for allowing my personal experiences to get in the way. I was trying to give my perspective on why someone would want to do something that changes their personality and why a personality change should not be viewed as a bad thing you wouldn't want to do if you like yourself. Much like I would enjoy hearing the opinions of someone who was in the military if I was wondering why someone would want to join the military. Everything they say might not have a source besides their opinion, but since this is a first hand account, their opinion can be important for understanding.

How about I word it like this:

Therapy can change your personality permanently by giving you new outlooks. Do you consider therapy something that you wouldn't want to do because you like yourself and it would change that?

I feel that is less opinionated and a more direct representation of what I am trying to get at.

>You just stated that shrooms=therapy.

No, I pretty clearly said it is similar.

And you want a source? Read this.

>An advantage of psychedelic drugs in exploring the unconscious is that a conscious sliver of the adult ego usually remains alert during the experience. Throughout the session, patients remain intellectually alert and remember their experiences vividly. In this highly introspective state, they also are actively cognizant of ego defenses such as projection, denial, and displacement as they react to themselves and their choices in the act of creating them.

There. I trimmed the opinion off of the question and re-presented it, and I provided a source supporting my opinion while simultaneously debunking your idea that I'm saying "shrooms=therapy."

u/TheHotshot1 · -20 pointsr/pharmacy

Some things can be "diagnosed" without tests or touching. Ever read this book: Handbook of Nonprescription Drugs

http://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Nonprescription-Drugs-Interactive-Self-Care/dp/1582121605

Great book.

u/Pardonme23 · 3 pointsr/worldnews

you're not wrong in your analysis. if you want to treat yourself, learn this book. its what pharmacists use. https://www.amazon.com/Handbook-Nonprescription-Drugs-Interactive-Self-Care/dp/1582122652. If you think its expensive, ask yourself what an unnecessary doctors office trip costs.

u/markko79 · 4 pointsr/nursing

This one seems to be popular. It's been the "bible" in every place I've worked over the past 30 years. A new edition is published every year.

http://www.amazon.com/Nursing2014-Drug-Handbook-Nursing/dp/1451186355

u/CL_3F · 5 pointsr/preppers

Lucky for you, the medical industry is also a fan of cheat sheets and makes one themselves.


https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/156363838X

u/blablahblah · 2 pointsr/explainlikeimfive

This is the Physician's Desk Reference, a summary of every major drug (not all drugs, just the more than a thousand popular ones) that was on the market in the US four years ago. Your doctor probably has a copy. There's no way they memorized all 3000 pages of that book. I guess they could have a pharmacy in the office, but there's a lot of doctors and they don't all need to maintain their own private pharmacy.

u/jace319 · 3 pointsr/pharmacy

Handbook of Non-Prescription Drugs isn't exactly "pocket", but it has everything you're asking for.

u/darkness-WO-light · 4 pointsr/trees
u/love_taxi · 1 pointr/mauramurray

I remember that Clint Harding said somewhere that the books were generic, general type books. Books you would have with you all the time.

The books...

http://www.amazon.com/Mosbys-Pharmacology-Nursing-Leda-McKenry/dp/0323030084

http://www.amazon.com/Pearson-Health-Professionals-Guide-2015-2016/dp/0134062191


Items in her car

http://mauramurray.blogspot.com/2015/11/what-they-found-in-mauras-car.html

u/DWShimoda · 1 pointr/MGTOW

> Other drugs to NOT mix with Cipro, include antinflammatory drugs like Ibuprofen and anti-diarrhea meds. He prescribed me a squits med.

BTW... my personal "standard practice" is that I NEVER, EVER take any medication without looking up the DETAILED info on it -- something that is EASY to do now with the internet -- but which I was doing way back in the 1980's (long before the internet ) initially by visiting the library to use & then later buying my own "PDR: Physician Desk Reference" guide to meds... which includes info not only on what "side effects" are known, but also what contraindations exist (drug interactions, etc) AND what "supervision/testing" is SUPPOSED to be done (regardless of side effect symptom complaints) for people ON certain medications.

And then of course it is a "judgement call" ON MY PART as to whether I will take on the risk... whether the medication's (potential) positives are worth the (possibility) of the negatives.

---
>I'd far rather he'd said "Let me just Google this a minute" and bloody checked first.

Well thing of it is you cannot trust someone else to do that -- you really DO have to do it yourself -- after all, who has MORE at stake in your health?

To the doc, you are just patient number #4,879... and there is (in some ways of understandable "necessity"*) a sort of ingrained "you win some, you lose some" indifference to the fate of patients.

Problem is that "indifference" -- while some level of it is necessary (again *) -- can easily combine with other priorities (ego, sloppiness, laziness, incompetence, even money, etc) such that it becomes either negligent or outright harmful. (In fact MOST of the history of "medicine" is rife with doctors doing more harm than good... and it is a modern "arrogance" to believe THAT state of things has been entirely changed, or that the potential for "harm" has been entirely "done away with"; because it hasn't, it most definitely hasn't.)

-
* That is to say, regardless of their actual skill -- or their "ego-mania" (or alternately their "humility" -- doctors are NOT "all-powerful"... it is inevitable that they WILL "lose" patients (i.e. people get sick/injured and SOME of them will die).

Doctors CANNOT always prevent that, in fact for the most part, in the lion's share of cases whether a patient "recovers" is MORE dependent upon the patients' own body: immune system & overall health; than it is on anything the doctor does or does not do; at best some intervention or treatment assists the body, at worst it harms/kills, and very often the effect is largely irrelevant (i.e. the patient would have recovered -- or died -- regardless).

Moreover, doctors CANNOT become so "invested" in the health of any particular patient that they become "devastated" by the person's sickness/death -- if and when they do so -- well, they effectively destroy their own ability to function (and THAT doesn't help anyone either).

u/axolotl_peyotl · -3 pointsr/conspiracy

Paralysis and the Politics of Polio

Paralysis and the Politics of Polio


Poliomyelitis, or polio, is a contagious disease caused by a virus that may attack nerve cells of the brain and spinal cord.

Fever, headache, sore throat, vomiting are some of the milder symptoms, and some victims develop neurological complications and paralysis of one or more limbs or respiratory muscles. In severe cases it can be fatal, due to respiratory paralysis.

Some people mistakenly believe that polio usually leads to paralysis, but this isn't the case.

95% of people exposed to the natural polio virus don't exhibit any symptoms, even under epidemic conditions, according to the Physicians' Desk Reference 2001 and Natural History of Infectious Disease by Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet and David O. White.

The Wikipedia article on polio initially cites the figure as 90%, but elsewhere on the page the “asymptomatic” outcome of poliovirus infection is listed as 90%-95%. According to the source used for these statistics, “Up to 95% of all polio infections are inapparent or asymptomatic.”

About 5% of infected people will experience mild symptoms such as a sore throat, stiff neck, headache, and fever—often diagnosed as a cold or flu. Muscular paralysis affects approximately one out of every 1,000 people who contract polio.

>This has lead some scientific researchers to conclude that the small percentage of people who do develop paralytic polio may be anatomically susceptible to the disease. The vast remainder of the population may be naturally immune to the polio virus. [Moskowitz, R. “Immunizations: the other side.” Mothering (Spring 1984):36]

Usually there is a full recovery from paralytic polio—it rarely is permanent. Only a small percentage of cases will experience residual paralysis.

There are many serious questions about what factors contribute to increasing an individual's susceptibility to serious adverse reactions to the polio virus.

Several studies have demonstrated that injections, either for vaccines or antibiotics, increase susceptibility to polio. It's been known since the early 1900s that paralytic poliomyelitis can start at the site of an injection.

>When diphtheria and pertussis vaccines were introduced in the 1940s, cases of paralytic poliomyelitis skyrocketed. This was documented in Lancet and other medical journals.

McCloskey, BP. “The relation of prophylactic inoculations to the onset of poliomyelitis.” Lancet (April 18, 1950):659-63

Geffen, DH “The incidence of paralysis occurring in London children within four weeks after immunization.” Med Officer 1950;83:137-40

Martin, JK. “Local paralysis in children after injections.” Arch Dis Child 1950;25:1-14

>In 1949, the Medical Research Council in Great Britain set up a committee to investigate the matter and ultimately concluded that individuals are at increased risk of paralysis for 30 days following injections; injections alter the distribution of paralysis; and it did not matter whether the injections were subcutaneous or intramuscular.

In 1992, a study was published in the Journal of Infectious Diseases that again confirmed these results after documenting an outbreak of polio in Oman that was linked to the DTP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) shot. They concluded that “injections are an important cause of provocative poliomyelitis.”

>In 1995, the New England Journal of Medicine published a study showing that children who received a single injection within one month after receiving a polio vaccine were 8 times more likely to contract polio than children who received no injections.

>The risk jumped 27-fold when children received up to nine injections...and with ten or more injections, the likelihood of developing polio was 182 times greater than expected.

>Why injections increase the risk of polio is unclear. Nevertheless, these studies and others indicate that “injections must be avoided in countries with endemic poliomyelitis.” Health authorities believe that all “unnecessary” injections should be avoided as well.

A poor diet has been shown to raise one's susceptibility to polio.

>In 1948, during the height of the polio epidemics, Dr. Benjamin Sandler, a nutritional expert at the Oteen Veterans' Hospital, documented a link between polio and an excessive use of sugars and starches.

>He compiled records showing that countries with the highest per capita consumption of sugar, such as the United States, Britain, Australia, Canada, and Sweden (with over 100 pounds per person per year) had the greatest incidence of polio. In contrast, polio was practically unheard of in China (with its sugar use of only 3 pounds per person per year).

Sandler claimed that sugars and starches lower blood sugar levels which leads to hypoglycemia.

>Such food dehydrate the cells and leech calcium from the body. A serious calcium deficiency precedes polio. Researchers have always known that polio strikes with its greatest intensity during the hot summer months.

>Dr. Sandler observed that children consume greater amounts of ice cream, soft drinks, and artificially sweetened products in hot weather. In 1949, before the polio season began, he warned the residents of North Carolina, through the newspapers and radio, to decrease their consumption of these products.

>That summer, North Carolinians reduced their intake of sugar by 90%; polio decreased by the same amount! The North Carolina State Health Department reported 2,498 cases of polio in 1948 and 229 cases in 1949. [Data taken from North Carolina State Health Department figures]

>One manufacturer shipped one million less gallons of ice cream during the first week alone following the publication of Dr. Sandler's anti-polio diet. Soft drink sales were down as well.

>But powerful Rockefeller Milk Trust, which sold frozen products to North Carolinians, combined forces with soft drink business leaders and convinced the public that Sandler's findings were a myth and the polio figures a fluke. By the summer of 1950 sales were back to previous levels and polio cases returned to “normal.” [McBean, E., Allen, H.]

As can be seen by this graph of United States polio rates, polio epidemics became a serious problem in the late 1940s and early 1950s, although it never quite reached the levels of 1916 (when the epicenter of the epidemic was mere miles from a Rockefeller research lab that was experimenting with an extremely virulent strain of the polio virus).

By the early 1950s, Jonas Salk began experimenting with a possible polio vaccine.

>In 1952, Salk combined three types of polio virus grown in cultures made from monkey kidneys. Using formaldehyde, he was able to “kill” or inactivate the viral matter so that it would trigger an antibody response without causing the disease.

In 1955, the first polio immunization campaign was launched in the United States. Almost immediately, it became clear that something was very wrong with the vaccine. In the end, 70,000 school children became seriously ill from Salk's vaccine—the infamous “Cutter Incident.”

>The mistake resulted in the production of 120,000 doses of polio vaccine that contained live polio virus. Of the children who received the vaccine, 40,000 developed abortive poliomyelitis. The Cutter incident was one of the worst pharmaceutical disasters in U.S. history.

The renowned surgeon Alton Ochsner even gave the vaccine to two of his grandchildren...one died and the other was paralyzed. “Apparently, Salk's killed-virus vaccine was not completely inactivated.”