Vernono O wrote:
- quote -

Good thing I was understating.

Vernie, do learn the meaning of "hyperbole".

On Fri, 26 Oct 2007 21:07:45 -0700, Pramesh Rutaji wrote:

- quote -

More dancing. Please explain how a "fictional" construction is committed to
anything? Commitment is a real world event. The Road Runner really wasn't
committed to making a fool of Wiley Coyote. Cartoons, much like you.

- quote -

You just go right on and enjoy yourself then. Dance, prance, whatever.

You see your worth in years, another one in several multi-trillion pieces
of biology, nothing either worth reporting or legacy worth determining.
Your impact is nothing, nothing at all. There is no hereafter, no
consequence to your actions. Why should there be? According to you, we are
all just passing breezes.

When the fun runs out, as you age as I have, what then? When you have had
all the funsies, what then?

You have no clue what the "good life" is. None.

MU wrote:
- quote -

Hitler and Christ were both fully committed to blood, killing, and death. (Of
course Hitler was a real person and Christ is a constructed fiction.) If
personal responsibility is equated to "dancing", sign me up. Living the good
life in the present moment, in the here, in the now, is what I'm about.

Pramesh

"Vernono O" <Here [at]there> wrote:

- quote -

As I have pointed out to you many times, I have two drugs in my
medicine cabinet, one of them available only on prescription and one
available at every corner store. The prescription drug (metformin) is
so harmless that someone has survived taking 800 of the tablets (I
only get 500 each time the prescription is filled). The other
(acetaminophen) is the most popular suicide method for teenage girls
and a lethal dose can be bought over the counter for less than $10.

Why do you keep repeating this idiocy?
--
Peter Bowditch aa #2243
The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Australian Council Against Health Fraud http://www.acahf.org.au
Australian Skeptics http://www.skeptics.com.au
To email me use my first name only at ratbags.com

On Oct 25, 6:11 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...[at]NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

Geez Bryan don,t you remember your earlier comment

...."My impression of the original article was that its main point was
not
that made in the OP. In my reading, the article was suggesting that
drug companies tended to use study methods which were cheaper (i.e.
using a minimal number of patients, etc), and as a result their
studies
were less likely to identify adverse events.


Which shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone. If an adverse event
occurs in 1:10,000 patients, and your study looks at 500 patients,
you're probably not going to see an adverse event.


Also, the findings of the study were not as dramatic as the OP made
it
seem. For example, the following line was snipped from the abstract:


"Overall, the finding of statistically significant differences for
adverse effects was significantly less frequent in PF (34.5%) than in
NoPF (65.1%) studies (prevalence ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence
interval,
0.44-0.64). This association became nonsignificant (prevalence ratio,
0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.15) after controlling for
design
features"


So the differences in between pharma vs. non-pharma studies
disappeared
when you take into account the differences in the ways the studies
were
conducted. Or, in other words, the differences are not because
pharma
is falsifying or embellishing their results, but rather because they
are
using different methodologies then non-pharma sources. "......

Perhaps you need to reread the thread and verify that you made those
comments .
You even included a snipped line but not all of it. Now you say



- quote -

Bryan did you actually read the abstact heres the relavant section

Results Overall, the finding of statistically significant differences
for adverse effects was significantly less frequent in PF (34.5%) than
in NoPF (65.1%) studies (prevalence ratio, 0.53; 95% confidence
interval, 0.44-0.64). This association became nonsignificant
(prevalence ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.77-1.15) after
controlling for design features (such as dose or use of parallel
groups) that tended to be associated with less frequent finding of
adverse effects and were more common in PF studies. Among studies
finding a statistically significant increase in adverse effects
associated with the study drug, the authors of PF articles concluded
that the drug was "safe" more frequently than the authors of NoPF
studies (prevalence ratio, 3.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.14-6.33).

Some of the design features are not cost saving but designs that may
cost more but dilute negative effects. What is says is that the public
studies and private studies came to different conclusions because
private funding by design used features such as dose or parallel
groups hide find negative effects . The cooking starts in the design.

Have a nice trip.

Thanks Vince

bigvince <Vince.Miraglia[at]gmail.com> wrote in part:

- quote -

That's what they do during the long period that it takes to develop a drug
and bring it to market. They continue only with the ones worth the risk of
continuing. That's why, when they finally fund the clinical/randomized
trials required by the government, they are usually right. If the ratio went
the other way (1 study favoring the product from the company that funded the
study and 15 favoring a competitor's drug) they would be out of business.

- quote -

We seem to disagree on one thing. I think the failure is mostly on the part
of government. You think it is mostly on the part of private enterprise.

The government should be conducting the major trials on drugs. And when it
uses industry-supplied data, it should do so with more protections than it
currently imposes.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

"Mark Probert" <markprobert[at]lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:RHkUi.23084$Qj3.17231[at]trndny01...
- quote -


Overstating is lying.

Supplements ARE "inherently" "safe". But You can drown in water.
"ALTERNATE medicine" may be what you are trying to say. Alternate medicine
is not normally supplements.
Supplement means to add to what you are already ingesting in the same venue
or context.

Drugs as used here are "prescription" drugs.
They have been classified as needing control because of dangers.
Yes some manufacturers try to get into the "controlled" group for pricing.
It is also illegal to use a "controlled" drug for any other purpose than
that for which it was authorized by the government.

I have never heard of anyone use the term "evil" about prescription drugs.

Overstating is lying, not opinion.

On Oct 25, 6:50 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...[at]SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
- quote -

Actually it has more to do with the ability of the company to start
and stop studies at will.Good example would be the unpublished studies
on advandia which where the basis of the analysis linking it to a
increased risk of heart attack. Or read the NEJM editorial in regard
to the VIGOR . Look at the controversy over the COURAGE trail on
stents which boils down to who pays the expert gets the study showing
the result they paid for.It really is about he ability of companies to
hide bad studies and only publish positive data. We agree on one thing
it is about Econ. 101 and Marketing 101.

Thanks Vince

On Oct 25, 6:50 pm, Jim Chinnis <jchin...[at]SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote:
- quote -

"Mark Probert" <markprobert[at]lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:RHkUi.23084$Qj3.17231[at]trndny01...
- quote -

Drugs which are only available by presciption (controlled) are dangerous (BY
DEFINITION) Of cours we all know how accurate the Government is.

- quote -

As I have stated before, I work with fairly large groups of traditional
doctors and clinics. I know of none that do not advise (prescribe) diet
(supplement) change or enhancement.
The most common
Prenatal vitamin packs for pregnant women
Calcium for many
Stay AWAY from iron for many


- quote -

x-no-archive: yes

Headers trimmed to stop x posting:

Jim Chinnis wrote:

- quote -

Costly *and* ineffective. I'm all for streamlining the stuff that costs
bucks and does no good.


- quote -

I can see that, too, but only if we cut back the redundancies that eat
up time and money and improve governmental oversight's effectiveness.

It's not as if, BTW, drug companies don't get to market the drugs we
hand them the research for in other countries long before they come to
our markets.

Susan

Susan <nevermind[at]nomail.com> wrote in part:

- quote -

Along with costly requirements for getting the drugs approved.

- quote -

Darned right. Bush would have raided the budget totally by now for a new
war. There would be no clinical trials going on for drugs at all. If private
business weren't allowed to do drug research, the government agency doing it
would wither. And as the number of pharmaceuticals in development dried up,
the cost of health care would stabilize. Health care costs are lowest in
places with virtually no access to pharmaceuticals or other treatments.

These discussions come down to politics rather than science. You're arguing
for the government to do it all; Pramesh wants the government out of
everything; I like to try for a balance that seems to me the best way to
improve drug quality. It seems to me that business is best at some things,
academia at others, and government at still others. I see a role for all in
drug discovery, development, and testing.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

x-no-archive: yes

Jim Chinnis wrote:

- quote -

We already fund a great deal of the initial resarch, which we then hand
over to pharma free of charge. Plus, if gov't were funding drug
research entirely, we could reduce the watchdog agency budget, too.

Right now, the gov't holds a patent on Antalarmin, for example, a drug
I'm paying close attention to for it's HPA effects.

Susan

Vernono O wrote:
- quote -

An opinon cannot be a lie. O posted my opinion. You disagree.

- quote -

Not always. Drugs are classified several different ways. Do stucy the
various schedules and criteria.

- quote -

I do not know about "very" often, but, I do know that there are doctors
who prescribe them.

Of course, your claiming that is heresy to the doctor haters who claim
otherwise.

- quote -

Absolutely.

- quote -

Even more absolutely. That is something I have long said. I grow much of
my own.

On Thu, 25 Oct 2007 21:36:23 -0700, Pramesh Rutaji wrote:

- quote -

There are two states of political intent. For or agin, no in between.
Libertarians want to dance the middle road. Christ was no dancer. Hitler
was no dancer. You, dance.

Susan wrote:
- quote -

Two cents here. Government should not be in the business of taking money by
force to fund studies of any kind, period. Of course, I'm libertarian and would
rather not be "watched" over by a "nanny" state.

Pramesh

"Mark Probert" <markprobert[at]lumbercartel.com> wrote in message
news:FW9Ui.4147$qo2.440[at]trndny06...
- quote -

You are a liar and you know it.

Drugs have been classified as dangerous and thus require control.
Supplements are VERY often prescribed by doctors but are not "controlled."
Supplements and drugs alike have "pushers" exaggerating and telling lies.
The "supplement" world is first and foremost a balanced diet.

Susan <nevermind[at]nomail.com> wrote in part:

- quote -

I think the government should do the studies, ideally. Now in the US the
government essentially requires the business to do the study. A decent
compromise would be to follow up with a government study when a drug is
approved. But that would require tax money and the people don't want to pay
taxes.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Susan <nevermind[at]nomail.com> wrote in part:

- quote -

The topic was raised by bigvince as why a drug in research funded by its
maker almost always is found superior to the other drug. I'll stick with
what I said re that.

It's certainly true that businesses try to maximize profits within the
framework of regulations they are subject to.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

On Oct 25, 6:41 pm, Bryan Heit <bjh...[at]NOSPAMucalgary.ca> wrote:

- quote -

I thought the role of oxLDL in atherosclerosis was still an open
question.

Jay Heinecke, Lipoprotein oxidation in cardiovascular disease: chief
culprit or innocent bystander?

http://www.jem.org/cgi/reprint/jem.20060218v1.pdf

Marilyn