 |  |
 |  |  | |||||||
|
--- VIOXX CASE MAY HELP ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE
In article Mark Probert wrote: > >"David Wright" >news:Bs%bd.17852$Qv5.5194@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... >> In article <79cf0a8.0410151445.37321314@posting.google.com>, >> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com >> >"Harvey R. Stone" >> >news: >> > >> >> Ooooh, you make a very good point. It is a point that includes the >choice >> >> people make when they take a DMARD...... The choice of Vioxx as a >NSAID >> >> has been taken away for good reasons and it is about Tomorrow >not >> >> about today's pain. Its about tomorrows death. We have people >who are >> >> not in pain making choices for the people who are...... I am sorry >to say >> >> that I am not smart enough to give an answer to that. >> >> >> >> Harv >> > >> > >> >COMMENT: >> > >> >Your government thinks it is. Though to be fair, Vioxx was pulled off >> >the market by the maker, not the FDA. Those who claim some kind of >> >deception by the maker should keep this in mind. >> > >> >Indeed, Vioxx increases the risk for heart attack and stroke by about >> >50%. You can do that easily by smoking a couple of cigarettes a day, >> >or by gaining 30 lbs. Or by being a couch potato. >> > >> >The question of how much pain relief is worth a very small chance on >> >your life, is a good one. People risk their lives to have plastic >> >surgery to correct the size of their noses or whatever. People risk >> >their lives to fly to Paris for vacation, or drive on the freeway to >> >grandma's for Thanksgiving dinner. Why shouldn't they be allowed to >> >take a risk to relieve constant pain? >> > >> >The answer of course is: no particular reason. The Vioxx risk is just >> >something that hadn't been noted before. If it had, it's possible the >> >drug would have been approved anyway. After we get used to it, perhaps >> >it will be on the market again. >> >> I'd bet against that. Merck will have its hands full defending >> lawsuits by zillions of people who once stood next to someone who was >> taking Vioxx. >> >> I believe Merck has a second generation COX-2 inhibitor in the >> pipeline (I think I recall reading it was already available in >> Europe). So that'll probably be the next product, though I'm sure now >> we'll need another 1.5-year study to see if it causes cardiovascular >> problems, or maybe the heartbreak of psoriasis. > >David, do no be so flip with the so-called heartbreak of psoriasis. I was only quoting Steve Harris, who had used the term in the post to which I was replying (though I snipped that paragraph). >Psoriatic arthritis is a serious complication of this diease. A friend of mine has psoriasis. Interestingly, it cleared up when he stopped drinking beer. (Maybe it was the gluten.) -- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct. "If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)
"David Wright" news:0hgcd.18037$Qv5.5257@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > In article > Mark Probert wrote: > > > >"David Wright" > >news:Bs%bd.17852$Qv5.5194@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com... > >> In article <79cf0a8.0410151445.37321314@posting.google.com>, > >> Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com > >> >"Harvey R. Stone" > >> >news: > >> > > >> >> Ooooh, you make a very good point. It is a point that includes the > >choice > >> >> people make when they take a DMARD...... The choice of Vioxx as a > >NSAID > >> >> has been taken away for good reasons and it is about Tomorrow > >not > >> >> about today's pain. Its about tomorrows death. We have people > >who are > >> >> not in pain making choices for the people who are...... I am sorry > >to say > >> >> that I am not smart enough to give an answer to that. > >> >> > >> >> Harv > >> > > >> > > >> >COMMENT: > >> > > >> >Your government thinks it is. Though to be fair, Vioxx was pulled off > >> >the market by the maker, not the FDA. Those who claim some kind of > >> >deception by the maker should keep this in mind. > >> > > >> >Indeed, Vioxx increases the risk for heart attack and stroke by about > >> >50%. You can do that easily by smoking a couple of cigarettes a day, > >> >or by gaining 30 lbs. Or by being a couch potato. > >> > > >> >The question of how much pain relief is worth a very small chance on > >> >your life, is a good one. People risk their lives to have plastic > >> >surgery to correct the size of their noses or whatever. People risk > >> >their lives to fly to Paris for vacation, or drive on the freeway to > >> >grandma's for Thanksgiving dinner. Why shouldn't they be allowed to > >> >take a risk to relieve constant pain? > >> > > >> >The answer of course is: no particular reason. The Vioxx risk is just > >> >something that hadn't been noted before. If it had, it's possible the > >> >drug would have been approved anyway. After we get used to it, perhaps > >> >it will be on the market again. > >> > >> I'd bet against that. Merck will have its hands full defending > >> lawsuits by zillions of people who once stood next to someone who was > >> taking Vioxx. > >> > >> I believe Merck has a second generation COX-2 inhibitor in the > >> pipeline (I think I recall reading it was already available in > >> Europe). So that'll probably be the next product, though I'm sure now > >> we'll need another 1.5-year study to see if it causes cardiovascular > >> problems, or maybe the heartbreak of psoriasis. > > > >David, do no be so flip with the so-called heartbreak of psoriasis. > > I was only quoting Steve Harris, who had used the term in the post to > which I was replying (though I snipped that paragraph). I missed that. Sorry. > >Psoriatic arthritis is a serious complication of this diease. > > A friend of mine has psoriasis. Interestingly, it cleared up when he > stopped drinking beer. (Maybe it was the gluten.) If only all the cases were so easy.
In article <79cf0a8.0410151445.37321314@posting.google.com>, sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote: >The question of how much pain relief is worth a very small chance on >your life, is a good one. People risk their lives to have plastic >surgery to correct the size of their noses or whatever. People risk >their lives to fly to Paris for vacation, or drive on the freeway to >grandma's for Thanksgiving dinner. Why shouldn't they be allowed to >take a risk to relieve constant pain? > >The answer of course is: no particular reason. The Vioxx risk is just >something that hadn't been noted before. If it had, it's possible the >drug would have been approved anyway. After we get used to it, perhaps >it will be on the market again. > IN hte final analysis the particular reason is two fold. One is that the FDA gets nailed to the cross whenever any medication has any nasty side effect that they SHOULD HAVE CAUGHT (no matter whether or not it is catchable in real life). So, we have a bureaucracy where it easier for them to pull something at the first hint of any problems than it is try to give things like cost benefit analysis in 10 second sound bites or to a Senator or Congresscritter who doesn't want to hear it anyway. On the part of the pharm company, again, it is easier to pull something than it is to have someone take the risk and then decide if that risk occurs, that it was REALLY the pharm company's fault and they should PAY. Viewed in these terms, taking away the risk to the patient by not allowing the patient access to something is preferable. -- "Jesus was provided for by his Father. I suspect the same is the case with many of those writing on the web." -- Michael Mendelsohn on alt.journalism.freelance
--------------7BFB8D9B9C4FCDBA0FA2E23F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" wrote: > > We're led to the interesting question of how the *&^% Dr. Smith would > know whether or not any "natural medicines" were more safe or less > safe than Vioxx? lol - want to read just how this smith makes jusdgements? see: Interview with study co-author, Dr Edwards Smith for an example of his 'quality' control methods...lol > Or how the @*^% Dr. Roach proposes to "fully > appreciate" how dangerous some of these "drugs can be" but has > knowledge that the alternatives are not? and based upon his actual practice: Dr. Jim Roach, MD Midway Family Practice 129 S. Winter Street Midway, KY 40347 (859) 846-4445 Family Practice Complimentary Medicine and his belief that that transendental meditation is as important, if not more so - why should he be required to actually have valid comparisons available - for him, it's 'belief'...don't forget, in spite of the fact that the actual studies show that echinacea isn't really effective - he still teaches in favor of it... --------------7BFB8D9B9C4FCDBA0FA2E23F Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit "Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com" wrote:
lol - want to read just how this smith makes jusdgements? see: Interview for an example of his 'quality' control methods...lol Or how the @*^% Dr. Roach proposes to "fully
Dr. Jim Roach, MD and his belief that that transendental meditation is as important, if « Previous 1 2 3 4 Related Discussion: Max 3 years to $3M :: No Joke! (1 posts) Reports: Other Drugs May Raise Heart Risks (1 posts) Food (1 posts) Positive thinking a pain reliever (1 posts) Top Discussions From Our Archives Relations Among Heart Disease, Diabetes and Dementia Investigated Red, Processed Meats Up Diabetes Risk Energy. Resilience. Vitality. Want some? Re: New to Diabetes--please help Other Discussion Categories Diabetes Symptoms Health Care Policy
|
| ||||||||
 |  |
