|
Home > Archive > Politics and Medicine > August 2005 > selling sickness to the well
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
selling sickness to the well
|
|
| zwalanga@yahoo.com 2005-08-02, 5:55 pm |
| Selling Sickness to the Well
A new book looks at how pharmaceutical companies are using aggressive
marketing campaigns to turn more people into patients.
WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Jennifer Barrett
Newsweek
Updated: 8:01 a.m. ET Aug. 2, 2005
Aug. 2, 2005 - There are few Americans these days who aren=E2=80=99t
popping pills to treat a complaint, or to prevent one. From headache
medicine to cholesterol-lowering drugs to sexual-dysfunction aids,
there seems to be a remedy for every disorder out there=E2=80"and even
some we didn't realize existed (until we saw the ad, that is). In their
new book, =E2=80=9CSelling Sickness: How the World=E2=80=99s Biggest
Pharmaceutical Companies Are Turning Us All Into Patients: (Nation
Books), Ray Moynihan and Alan Cassels examine how the drug industry has
transformed the way we think about physical and mental health and
turned more and more of us each year into customers. NEWSWEEK's
Jennifer Barrett spoke with Moynihan, a medical writer for the Milbank
Memorial Fund in New York and a regular contributor to the British
Medical Journal, about how=E2=80"and why=E2=80"drug makers have begun
targeting people who aren't sick. Excerpts:
NEWSWEEK: You write that drug makers now aggressively target the
=E2=80=9Chealthy.=E2=80=9D Why?
Ray Moynihan: The book opens with a quote from a former Merck CEO that
it was a shame he wasn"t able to make Merck more like the chewing-gum
maker, Wrigley's, because then he'd be able to "sell to everyone." I
think that does drive the marketing machinery of the drug companies
now. Drug companies target lots of sick people and make fabulous drugs
that extend lives and ameliorate suffering. But the so-called
preventives are where the big money are: like the bone-density drugs or
the cholesterol [-lowering] drugs. Increasingly we're seeing the
marketing shift to those types of drugs. People talk about the "worried
well." There are many ways in which the drug companies target those
people.
You mean people who are well but worried about being sick? How are they
targeted?
The use of celebrities is now a standard way in which drug companies
don't just promote their drugs but try and change public awareness,
public thinking and public perceptions about illness. In some cases the
disease phrasing is legitimate and welcome. But when you have
celebrities trying to change the way we think about sexual difficulties
or stomach problems or symptoms of stages of life, these are insidious
campaigns.
Why celebrities? I might take Serena Williams' advice on a brand of
tennis racket's but menstrual migraine medication?
[Laughs.] There's actually a whole mini industry of celebrity brokers
who bring together celebrities and drug companies. I've interviewed one
of the brokers who talked about the reason celebrities work so well in
getting people to think about conditions and to go to their doctors.
Why do they work so well?
Because people trust celebrities. But they are not telling you often
enough that they are on the [drug company's] payroll. Of course, if
they did tell you as often as they should, your trust might diminish
somewhat.
Aren't there enough sick people that the drug companies can target? Why
try and convince others they're sick?
The marketing people and the sophisticated PR people who work for them
are doing what shareholders demand of them. They're looking for ways to
maximize markets. One way is to redefine more and more people as sick.
There's an informal alliance between the drug companies and aspects of
the medical profession and aspects of the patient advocacy world who
all seem to have interests in defining more and more people as ill. We
look at this condition by condition in the book, and what you see is a
similar formula or process at work. Every time a panel of experts come
together, they want to nudge the boundaries a little further out,
whether it's mental illness, cholesterol or high blood pressure.
How do you think this is affecting the American psyche?
Asclepius was the Greek god for healing and one of his children was
Panacea. She is one we all worship no matter if we're Jewish or
Christian or Muslim. We all want a panacea, particularly if we're
vulnerable or sick. The trouble is that there are vast commercial and
professional forces trying to exploit the vulnerability we have and
exploit our desire for a panacea. I don't know what is happening to the
American psyche. But I see a country bombarded with advertisements.
We're seeing fear of disease, decay and death becoming a central part
of life. I'd like people to investigate the psychic impact of being
told 10 times a day you might actually be sick.
You're from Australia, though you focus on the United States for this
book. Is America unique?
The marketing strategies of pharmaceutical companies play out globally.
However, the U.S. is the epicenter of the selling of sickness, of
disease-mongering. Americans make up less than 5 percent of the
world=E2=80=99s population but the U.S. makes up 50 percent of the drug
market.
Really
That doesn't mean the U.S. takes 50 percent of pills.
That's a relief.
But it does account for half of total spending on drugs. It's still
extraordinary. And it's at the high end of pill taking.
Why is that?
The U.S. is different because it allows direct-to-consumer advertising
[of prescription medications], which has taken off in a huge way in the
past eight to 10 years. It=E2=80=99s been around a long time, but there
was a loosening of the regulations in the mid- to late '90s. New
Zealand, too, is [unusual] in the world that way. In Australia and
other countries, there is a strict ban on direct to consumer marketing.
But so-called disease awareness programs, heavily funded by
pharmaceutical companies, are not banned. So marketing strategies do
play out in other places as well.
Have you heard from any drug companies since your book came out?
It's been out for a month in Australia, and there hasn't been anything
out there to counter the journalism in my book. There's been a very
strong silence. The worrying thing about that is that it makes me think
that I might be right.
If so, what do you hope would come from the book?
I hope a few more people become a bit more skeptical about the claims
being made to them about drugs and disease, about the labels that are
being attached to them, and the conditions they're being told they
have. It's time for all of us to be a bit more skeptical.
=C2=A9 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
| |
| george conklin 2005-08-02, 5:55 pm |
|
<zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1123017079.813880.290480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Selling Sickness to the Well
A new book looks at how pharmaceutical companies are using aggressive
marketing campaigns to turn more people into patients.
The medical/industrial complex is as greedy today as the
military/industrial complex was in Eisenhower's time.
| |
| William Wagner 2005-08-02, 5:55 pm |
| In article <1123017079.813880.290480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"zwalanga@yahoo.com" <zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Selling Sickness to the Well
Thanks Zee!
Bill
Look at the reviews here some time.
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...id=1123018096/s
r=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7144342-8957643?v=glance&s=books
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes.
This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| zwalanga@yahoo.com 2005-08-02, 5:55 pm |
| Yes. I've read bits and pieces of all of them. But there's soooo much.
Right now, reading this one. The co-author is Canuck. (Shhh. Don't tell
SlasherBoi Harris). Zee
William Wagner wrote:
> In article <1123017079.813880.290480@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "zwalanga@yahoo.com" <zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
> Thanks Zee!
>
> Bill
>
> Look at the reviews here some time.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...id=1123018096/s
> r=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7144342-8957643?v=glance&s=books
>
> --
> Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
> This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes.
> This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-02, 10:54 pm |
| William Wagner wrote:
> Look at the reviews here some time.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...id=1123018096/s
> r=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7144342-8957643?v=glance&s=books
COMMENT:
William Wagner wrote:
> Look at the reviews here some time.
>
> http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/t...id=1123018096/s
> r=1-3/ref=sr_1_3/002-7144342-8957643?v=glance&s=books
COMMENT From a doctor of medicine:
I don't think my blood pressure can stand much of this book. I'm taking
a "me-too" blood pressure drug, too. But one that (at last) has no side
effects. According to this book, I'm deriving no benefit from the stuff
(since consumers are said not to benefit from me-too drugs), and thus,
I should still be taking Aldomet, or whatever the proto-primal blood
pressure pill is considered to be.
Well, I refuse to take Aldomet. Marcia Angell is a physician and former
editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Supposedly, that
makes her uniquely qualified to write a nasty book about drug
companies, which she has. But somehow, she appears to have quit paying
attention to her own professional behavior. For example, I'll bet she
doesn't prescribe Aldomet for all her hyertensive patients, either, but
instead something developed in the last couple of decades (i.e., a
me-too drug). Of course, it's rather difficult to define what a me-too
drug is. Dr. Angell opines that it's a minor change in a same basic
molecular entity. Sort of like the difference between Vioxx and
Celebrex, which is to say, the drug now off the market due to side
effects, vs. the one still sold. Or perhaps between Rezulin and
Avandia. You remember Rezulin? The premier drug in its class, now off
the market for causing liver failure? Which a little tweeking of the
molecule prevented. It seems there's a problem with Angell's
argument-- it costs a lot of money to do tweaking, and tweaking is how
people in technology get things right. Dr. Angell wants people to just
stop that tweaking. At least when it comes to drugs. So perhaps we
would and should be stuck with Rezulin and Vioxx, and perhaps Inderal
and penicillin G?
But who will we blame for THAT?
Dr. Angell spends some time arguing that drug companies spend all their
research money on me-too drugs for high blood pressure and depression,
instead of drugs for killer diseases in third world countries. But, now
a second problem: WHY exactly are the third world's medical problems to
be laid at the door of drug companies? After all, the agricultural
industry in the West spends a lot of time putting expensive foods like
steak and ham on the tables of Americans and Canadians, while children
in African starve for lack of a little of the grain we feed these
expensive animals. But why don't we read about "me-too Canadian Bacon"?
Strangely, there are no progressive books about "Big Farm-a" in which
the starving children of Africa are discussed. Why? Because even the
Left cannot go that far, without losing their straight faces. And
ours.
So what is so special about the technology of the drug industry, which
allows this kind of argument to happen? Which allows an entire
industrial sector in the West to get blamed for some of the poverty in
the Third World (say what??). My own feeling is that it's because most
of us understand food a little better than drugs, which is why we end
up listening to doctors like Angell when it comes to judging drugs. And
why we don't feel that the average North American farmer (say) has some
secret black spot of evilness and greed which presents him from
thinking about starving Africans rather than ham-eating Canadians. But
are willing to allow that the same may not be the case with drug
company executives....
And so we come to another problem. Just how ARE the public and doctors
to find out about the latest medical research involving drugs?
Dr. Angell doesn't like most drug advertising. Certainly not direct
advertising to patients, so that means she really wants doctors to
control the information flow. And she doesn't like drug company
advertising even to doctors when it involves giving them small gifts,
or even taking up much of their time.
However, it seems that time reading ads in magazines is not to be
counted.
Here is the problem. Dr. Angell was editor of a journal which informs
doctors of the latest breakthroughs in medicine (that's education!),
but that journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, would simply not
survive without massive drug company advertising. Most of their bills
are paid that way, just like the doctor-education companies that Dr.
Angell has problems wants to do away with. Therefore, it is a fact that
Big Pharma paid most of Dr. Angell's salary for years. Thus, not only
did drug company money make the modern NEJM possible, but Dr. Angell
herself spent a long time sucking full strength on the drug company
money teat, while now accusing doctors of putting a little milk in
their coffee.
Now, it would be one thing if Dr. Angell had seen the light, had the
scales fall from her eyes, and had lost her job as NEJM editor in a
titanic battle to wean them from drug company advertising. I would love
that story! But if that happened, the story would be too good to omit
from her book, and it's not there. So I presume it didn't happen
(unless the woman is not only saintly but modest also--corrections
invited). Instead, I presume she left her job or was fired, and THEN
began to become angry at the money people behind what she did for a
living. That's a much more familiar and human story. But one expects
people who live it, to have some self-insight. Dr. Angell worked in
the very industry that she wants to destroy in its present form, which
is getting information to doctors on the ticket of Big Pharma. It's one
thing to do something antisocial (though profitable) for a living, but
it's something else to be fired and THEN suggest that everyone ELSE not
do it. Please!
We'd all like drug companies to not pay for so much medical education,
myself included. It distorts facts. But Dr. Angell made her living as a
broker at this game, and never found a solution for it, except to quit
or be kicked out. Nor does she really suggest one in her book, either,
apparently, except that doctors need to spend their own money. As
though doctors didn't already spend enough on their educations. I don't
think THAT will work.
I want to be fair. This is not to say that some of Angell's "fixes"
don't make sense. It would be good (as Angell points out) if the NIH,
in their grant processing, looked very hard at the design of trials to
make sure that generic drugs and non-drug therapies didn't get short
shrift in therapy trial designs. And it would be nice if the FDA's
regulations didn't put the economic bar so high on development of new
drugs. But a book fully addressing all this would have had to put the
"blame" in many places for the distressing fact that we know more about
new drugs than we'd like to in medicine, and less that we'd like to
about almost everything else. And some of that blame would have to go
to places where drug companies could not be blamed for it.
The truth is the FDA has every incentive not to speed drug development
if it carries any risks, even if they never took a nickel from Pharma.
Why? Because the FDA isn't ill or dying, and the only pain it feels is
political pain, when it approves a new drug which causes problems
later. So the immortal FDA is naturally far more conservative than
patients and doctors are about trying new treatments, and that's not
good. A book about drug-related evils in the medical world should at
least acknowledge this very simple one.
I have a last problem with this book, and that's one of economic
honesty. Dr. Angell looks at the profits the top 10 drug companies made
up to 2002, and then cuts off her analysis there. But those same
companies took quite a beating in 2003 and 2004 (Vioxx!), and some
notice of that in the book, would have been instructive. It's not like
the data had no time to make into the manuscript in this electronic
era-- these companies report quarterly, and we well know editing is now
done by email at the speed of light. Basically, the latest drug company
profit figures were inconvenient to Dr. Angell's arguments. But leaving
out inconvenient data is dishonest.
Here's an economic truth that Dr. Angell doesn't confront. Drug
discovery is risky, and (despite what you would think from this book)
there is in fact no license which congress has somehow given the drug
companies which allows them to print money. (A license to practice
medicine would actually be closer to such a thing, but I won't go
there).
The point about Big Pharm and its supposed guaranteed profits, should
be obvious. Why? If it weren't true, then anybody who needed money in
medicine could simply make all they liked, by **investing in a small
stock fund made of the 10 top drug companies.** The NEJM could do this
to run itself, and could then stop accepting specific drug advertising.
Medical schools could do it, and could then stop accepting deals with
specific drug companies. Even people feeling the pinch of expensive
drugs in their lives could make up for it, by re-financing the home and
putting the proceeds into a pharma sector stock fund, and then simply
using the profits to buy Crestor with. There's not limit: charities who
want new drugs for children in African could finance their development
with drug company stock-funds also. It's all so simple, if the world is
as Dr. Angell paints it.
Except, in real life, it wouldn't work. In real life, the last two
years would have bankrupted anybody who wanted to try it. And when Dr.
Angell comes to grips with this simple fact, she (and all who criticize
the fat-cats in pharma) will have a better understanding of just how it
is that we win even the knowledge of drugs that forms the basis of
standard medical practice. Fact: we do it at great risk. And if you
don't think so, let's see you put YOUR money where your mouth is.
When we win the knowledge of how to treat a disease with a drug, we do
so ONLY because our legal system has "figured out" how to make people
who benefit from the knowledge, pay for it. When we stop doing that,
new knowledge will mostly go away (I won't go into that, but see the
case of India, which suffered a 95% collapse in drug discovery when
they temporarily stopped protecting it with IP rights). The solution,
then, is not so much to attack medical drug and device companies, but
to adopt some of their methods, and to structure a patent system and
discovery system which will allow the drug industry's methods and
progress to become available in ALL areas of medical care. THEN, we'll
really have medical progress, which is knowledge progress, on all
fronts.
Steve Harris, MD
(And no, I don't work for the pharm industry, and never have).
| |
| george conklin 2005-08-03, 8:54 am |
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123034248.739102.250930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> William Wagner wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
>
> William Wagner wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT From a doctor of medicine:
>
> Here is the problem. Dr. Angell was editor of a journal which informs
> doctors of the latest breakthroughs in medicine (that's education!),
> but that journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, would simply not
> survive without massive drug company advertising. Most of their bills
> are paid that way,
There is no reason why the AMA's expenses have to be so high that they
need to depend on drug advertising to run a journal. Other disciples have
loads of journals which run quite nicely without ads, mainly because they
are not available or needed. Medicine is big, big money, and there is no
reason for this. It is simply the burden which makes USA medicine the most
expensive in the world for horribly marginal benefits over Canada or Europe
as a whole, where results are better and expenses run HALF what they are
here. Drug companies are only one fraction of the problem, but we in the
USA do seem to pay for drug development for the rest of the world. If the
AMA wanted to get rid of drug ads, it could do so tomorrow and survive
nicely. ASR and AJS do not do drug ads....no need.
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-03, 11:55 am |
|
george conklin wrote:
> There is no reason why the AMA's expenses have to be so high that they
> need to depend on drug advertising to run a journal. Other disciples have
> loads of journals which run quite nicely without ads, mainly because they
> are not available or needed.
COMMENT:
Oh, really? Okay, George, let me call you on that. Name me some
peer-reviewed professional journals that go for $3.50 an issue to
non-society members (since otherwise society dues count), and which do
not charge a per-page publication-defrayment charge to authors (which
in many other smaller medical journals goes can run $70 to 100 per
page), and carry NO advertising. This should be amusing. Don't try to
BS me, because I *WILL* check what you come up with.
>If the
> AMA wanted to get rid of drug ads, it could do so tomorrow and survive
> nicely. ASR and AJS do not do drug ads....no need.
COMMENT:
Another person deciding what other people outside their profession and
institutions, of which they know nothing, NEED.
Are you Canadian, George? Or just one of those academic socialists who
is disconnected even from the finances of the academic institution he
belongs to?
You're certainly not a department chairmen, or you wouldn't be so
cavelier about how much money people and institutions NEED to opperate.
SBH
| |
| Skeptic 2005-08-03, 10:57 pm |
| It really is quite an expensive process to produce a quality medical
journal. It's an intensive review process. The number of submissions is
enormous. Journals typically try to provide discounts for medical schools,
students, and residents, who can't afford the full price of the journal
otherwise. That costs can be defrayed via adds is not a bad thing so long
as equal advertising is assured.
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123083772.972863.277780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> george conklin wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Oh, really? Okay, George, let me call you on that. Name me some
> peer-reviewed professional journals that go for $3.50 an issue to
> non-society members (since otherwise society dues count), and which do
> not charge a per-page publication-defrayment charge to authors (which
> in many other smaller medical journals goes can run $70 to 100 per
> page), and carry NO advertising. This should be amusing. Don't try to
> BS me, because I *WILL* check what you come up with.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Another person deciding what other people outside their profession and
> institutions, of which they know nothing, NEED.
>
> Are you Canadian, George? Or just one of those academic socialists who
> is disconnected even from the finances of the academic institution he
> belongs to?
>
> You're certainly not a department chairmen, or you wouldn't be so
> cavelier about how much money people and institutions NEED to opperate.
>
> SBH
>
| |
| Herman Rubin 2005-08-04, 5:59 pm |
| In article <Rl3Ie.149$RZ2.116@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net>,
george conklin <george@nxu.edu> wrote:
>"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
>news:1123034248.739102.250930@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
...................
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> There is no reason why the AMA's expenses have to be so high that they
>need to depend on drug advertising to run a journal. Other disciples have
>loads of journals which run quite nicely without ads, mainly because they
>are not available or needed.
Most scientific journals rely heavily on ads, or some other
rather expensive subsidization. Look at _Science_, the
journal of the American Association for the Advancement of
Science; loaded with ads. Other scientific journals have
some other means of subsidization, all of which happen to
be undesirable. And the cost of publishing, despite all the
electronic means to lower cost, is considered a major problem.
What would the cost of your local paper be without advertising?
Universities are having to cut back on journal subscriptions,
because of the growing cost.
Medicine is big, big money, and there is no
>reason for this.
This is the case everywhere in the world.
It is simply the burden which makes USA medicine the most
>expensive in the world for horribly marginal benefits over Canada or Europe
>as a whole, where results are better and expenses run HALF what they are
>here.
Your figures are somewhat off.
Drug companies are only one fraction of the problem, but we in the
>USA do seem to pay for drug development for the rest of the world. If the
>AMA wanted to get rid of drug ads, it could do so tomorrow and survive
>nicely. ASR and AJS do not do drug ads....no need.
I am unfamiliar with these journals; but do they run other ads?
All of the organizations I belong to have ads; some of these
journals have ads for books sold by the organization. In
mathematics, these are the major products around, and even
advertising computers would not be an effective idea. but
statistics journals advertise computer packages, which seem
to me to be less well designed than drugs.
Besides, how are physicians to know about drugs? One of the
purposes of advertising is to make the availability of products
known, We do not have an organization, in the US or anywhere
else, to evaluate products and provide the rating information.
Nor would such evaluation be cheap; you cannot decide how good
a drug is by trying it on 5 or 10 people, as was done when
aspirin and heroin were developed. None of the test subjects
for heroin became addicted.
One of the reason for the high costs of medicine in the US is
that we make the mistake of trying to "educate" everyone, so
we do not subsidize quality education for the bright as the
rest of the world does.
Another reason is that we have too many government regulations.
It is not easy for people to make intelligent decisions about
their treatment in the US, and harder in most other countries.
If a government decides, it is sure to be far from optimal.
--
This address is for information only. I do not claim that these views
are those of the Statistics Department or of Purdue University.
Herman Rubin, Department of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558
| |
| William Wagner 2005-08-04, 5:59 pm |
| In article <1123083772.972863.277780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> george conklin wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Oh, really? Okay, George, let me call you on that. Name me some
> peer-reviewed professional journals that go for $3.50 an issue to
> non-society members (since otherwise society dues count), and which do
> not charge a per-page publication-defrayment charge to authors (which
> in many other smaller medical journals goes can run $70 to 100 per
> page), and carry NO advertising. This should be amusing. Don't try to
> BS me, because I *WILL* check what you come up with.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Another person deciding what other people outside their profession and
> institutions, of which they know nothing, NEED.
>
> Are you Canadian, George? Or just one of those academic socialists who
> is disconnected even from the finances of the academic institution he
> belongs to?
>
> You're certainly not a department chairmen, or you wouldn't be so
> cavelier about how much money people and institutions NEED to opperate.
>
> SBH
Seems he is making a list and checking twice.
He "WILL" check . All my goodness!!
Must be special kind of guy or is that god speaking?
I'm really scared as I know the truth resides in something he was
assigned to read. Talk of socialist inclinations ...no comment.
Robert is this enough treating Sbhubris with respect?
Bill
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes.
This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-04, 5:59 pm |
| William Wagner wrote:
> In article <1123083772.972863.277780@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> Seems he is making a list and checking twice.
>
> He "WILL" check . All my goodness!!
>
> Must be special kind of guy or is that god speaking?
COMMENT:
Nope, just somebody giving notice that I won't let you get away with
giving obviously wrong statistics here, as part of some bogus argument
against economics or science in general and medical science in
particular. Anymore than I expect to be able to get away with it
myself. Sharon Hope insisted on giving incorrect data about Lipitor
side effects in PIs and study results, and got her arugment handed back
to her in thin slices. Not long before that I made the remark that HRT
doesn't increase incontience in women, and got myself shown that the
latest and best studies show otherwise. Wups, I was out of date. We all
stand equal before the study results.
The only way of trying to duck out of THAT is to accuse the study
reporters and designers of gross dishonesty, graft, and general wide
conspiracy (since they have make independent results from different
groups agree, too). Which tactic of course has been tried here
repeatedly, though not by me. But we have a spacial pen for paranoids
and conspiracy theorists here on sci.med also. It's not a nice place to
be, because you lose a lot of credibility rattling those bars.
> I'm really scared as I know the truth resides in something he was
> assigned to read. Talk of socialist inclinations ...no comment.
COMMENT
Feel free to comment all you like. You can claim the TRUTH resides in
anything you like. Just be prepared to take the heat for what you
claim. It's called "responsiblity."
SO you are going to play the defiant student and claim the truth isn't
in anything you were "assigned" to read? LOL. Guess what, this is the
adult world, and it (mostly) doesn't operate that way. Nobody assigns
you anything, and you can believe whatever you like. You can believe in
a hollow earth and qi and flying saucers. All society demands is that
you follow certain laws (and traffic rules if you drive). You can
refuse to read at all, if you like, so long as you know what the
traffic signs mean. The world of science and medicine has its own
standards, and if you don't agree with them, nobody will put you in the
pokey the way they will if you presistantly refuse to agree on what a
stop sign rqeuires you to do. So far as *science* goes, you're free to
join alt.kooks or play in the corner. Or you can come here and argue
your viewpoint.
> Robert is this enough treating Sbhubris with respect?
COMMENT:
LOL. You can treat ME any way you like. Whatever respect a poster get
on usenet, or not, is earned by what they write over the long haul. The
only way to duck THAT is to change your name and/or go anonymous.
Changing your name just resets you back to zero (until you're
recognized). As for going anonymous, it sets you back many points from
post #1. Some people manage to make up for that, and others never do.
SBH
| |
| William Wagner 2005-08-04, 5:59 pm |
| In article <1123184689.848453.326410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> William Wagner wrote:
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Nope, just somebody giving notice that I won't let you get away with
> giving obviously wrong statistics here, as part of some bogus argument
> against economics or science in general and medical science in
> particular. Anymore than I expect to be able to get away with it
> myself. Sharon Hope insisted on giving incorrect data about Lipitor
> side effects in PIs and study results, and got her arugment handed back
> to her in thin slices. Not long before that I made the remark that HRT
> doesn't increase incontience in women, and got myself shown that the
> latest and best studies show otherwise. Wups, I was out of date. We all
> stand equal before the study results.
>
> The only way of trying to duck out of THAT is to accuse the study
> reporters and designers of gross dishonesty, graft, and general wide
> conspiracy (since they have make independent results from different
> groups agree, too). Which tactic of course has been tried here
> repeatedly, though not by me. But we have a spacial pen for paranoids
> and conspiracy theorists here on sci.med also. It's not a nice place to
> be, because you lose a lot of credibility rattling those bars.
>
>
> COMMENT
>
> Feel free to comment all you like. You can claim the TRUTH resides in
> anything you like. Just be prepared to take the heat for what you
> claim. It's called "responsiblity."
>
> SO you are going to play the defiant student and claim the truth isn't
> in anything you were "assigned" to read? LOL. Guess what, this is the
> adult world, and it (mostly) doesn't operate that way. Nobody assigns
> you anything, and you can believe whatever you like. You can believe in
> a hollow earth and qi and flying saucers. All society demands is that
> you follow certain laws (and traffic rules if you drive). You can
> refuse to read at all, if you like, so long as you know what the
> traffic signs mean. The world of science and medicine has its own
> standards, and if you don't agree with them, nobody will put you in the
> pokey the way they will if you presistantly refuse to agree on what a
> stop sign rqeuires you to do. So far as *science* goes, you're free to
> join alt.kooks or play in the corner. Or you can come here and argue
> your viewpoint.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> LOL. You can treat ME any way you like. Whatever respect a poster get
> on usenet, or not, is earned by what they write over the long haul. The
> only way to duck THAT is to change your name and/or go anonymous.
> Changing your name just resets you back to zero (until you're
> recognized). As for going anonymous, it sets you back many points from
> post #1. Some people manage to make up for that, and others never do.
>
> SBH
I stand by what I write for over 20 years.
William Wagner
B2wagner
Bill Wagner
Always a defiant student till I die.
Thanks for the compliment.
Also also a retraction on the Hubris add on to SB.
Not called for apologia given.
Bill
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes.
This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| listener 2005-08-04, 5:59 pm |
| William Wagner <Nonsence_here_B2wagner@Snip.net> wrote in
news:Nonsence_here_B2wagner-EBB82D.16061304082005@news.supernews.com:
> In article <1123184689.848453.326410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
back[vbcol=seagreen]
all[vbcol=seagreen]
to[vbcol=seagreen]
in[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
The[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> I stand by what I write for over 20 years.
>
> William Wagner
> B2wagner
> Bill Wagner
>
> Always a defiant student till I die.
>
> Thanks for the compliment.
>
>
> Also also a retraction on the Hubris add on to SB.
>
> Not called for apologia given.
>
> Bill
>
Are you, like, uh, nuts?
Get out in the sun more.
L.
| |
| William Wagner 2005-08-04, 10:54 pm |
| In article <Xns96A8BD54DA5F2some1outthere@38.144.126.105>,
listener <listener@nospam.net> wrote:
> William Wagner <Nonsence_here_B2wagner@Snip.net> wrote in
> news:Nonsence_here_B2wagner-EBB82D.16061304082005@news.supernews.com:
>
> back
> all
> to
> in
> the
> The
>
> Are you, like, uh, nuts?
>
> Get out in the sun more.
>
> L.
What is it this time L? A new computer again. Remember you kill filed
me. I'm tired of telling you to get it right.
I am insane...Happy....?? You are such a well balanced individual that
I imagine folks are seeking you out for dinner conversation. Charming
comes to mind.
Thanks for all your words of wisdom usually in a line or two. Look in
the mirror sweet heart. You contribute so much I can't remember any of
your drivel. Write a poem!
Bill
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative purposes.
This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-05, 9:14 am |
|
"William Wagner" <Nonsence_here_B2wagner@Snip.net> wrote in message
news:Nonsence_here_B2wagner-EBB82D.16061304082005@news.supernews.com...
> In article <1123184689.848453.326410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>
> I stand by what I write for over 20 years.
>
> William Wagner
> B2wagner
> Bill Wagner
>
> Always a defiant student till I die.
>
> Thanks for the compliment.
>
>
> Also also a retraction on the Hubris add on to SB.
>
> Not called for apologia given.
>
> Bill
Well done!
Apparently the web bots have stumbled onto some troubling posts.
Witness the EVERYONE-MUST-TAKE-STATINS-AND-LIKE-IT goon squad that recently
descended to play tag team flame war.
Somehow they have given themselves to believe that unfounded sarcasm and
rudeness make their positions credible.
Many of us read their posts and visualize Rumplestilskin in his last
moments.
>
> --
> Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
> This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with Title 17
> U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational and informative
> purposes.
> This material is distributed without profit.
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-05, 9:14 am |
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123184689.848453.326410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> William Wagner wrote:
>
> Sharon Hope insisted on giving incorrect data about Lipitor
> side effects in PIs and study results, and got her arugment handed back
> to her in thin slices.
Interesting, all my posts were supplied with source links and the math
(correct and decimal error, favoring the other side) were carefully
explained.
Distinctly unlike the detractors' comments.
Bottom line, regardless of all the uproar, is that amnesia occurs far more
frequently among Lipitor users than among the general population.
But then, multiple published books and studies alread attest to this. That
you have some snide and disrespectful comment for each does not diminish
these well-referenced published sources.
| |
| MassiveBrainInjury@SleazyISP.edu 2005-08-05, 9:14 am |
| "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>William Wagner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>COMMENT:
>William Wagner wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
>COMMENT From a doctor of medicine:
<snip>
>Well, I refuse to take Aldomet. Marcia Angell is a physician and former
>editor of the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM). Supposedly, that
>makes her uniquely qualified to write a nasty book about drug
>companies, which she has. But somehow, she appears to have quit paying
>attention to her own professional behavior. For example, I'll bet she
>doesn't prescribe Aldomet for all her hyertensive patients, either, but
>instead something developed in the last couple of decades (i.e., a
>me-too drug). Of course, it's rather difficult to define what a me-too
>drug is. Dr. Angell opines that it's a minor change in a same basic
>molecular entity. Sort of like the difference between Vioxx and
>Celebrex, which is to say, the drug now off the market due to side
>effects, vs. the one still sold. Or perhaps between Rezulin and
>Avandia. You remember Rezulin? The premier drug in its class, now off
>the market for causing liver failure? Which a little tweeking of the
>molecule prevented. It seems there's a problem with Angell's
>argument-- it costs a lot of money to do tweaking, and tweaking is how
>people in technology get things right. Dr. Angell wants people to just
>stop that tweaking. At least when it comes to drugs. So perhaps we
>would and should be stuck with Rezulin and Vioxx, and perhaps Inderal
>and penicillin G?
Harris, you're great at pointing out logical fallacies and assigning
their Latin names (such as "post hoc ergo procter hoc"). How about a
name for taking an exception and presenting it as the general rule or
in this case arguing that because some exceptional item deviated from
the point the author was trying to make that his/her generalized
argument was totally wrong.
Further, how about a more sophisticated term for disingenuousness?
Maybe in Latin or the original Greek?
This "Not a doctor of medicine" (or of anything else for that matter),
little me, can give you two off-the-cuff me-too drugs just out of his
own knowledge: Cialis and Levitra. Me-too drugs from Lilly and Bayer
respectively "too-ing" Pfizer's Viagra. All three are PDE-5
suppressors which agreed have slightly different characteristics and
slightly different side-effects profile. I'm sure that a couple of
percent of the people taking (say) Cialis are very pleased to be able
to do without the fairly rare blue haze effect of Viagra and another
couple of percent taking Levitra are happy that they don't have the
also-rare pain-in-the-buttocks side effect of Cialis. WOW, and Lilly
and Bayer spent how much to deal with these little problems? (The
benefits are probably happenstance anyway.) Could we (the consuming
and largely ignored public) have spent this money more wisely in
dealing with the other impotency-related problems (presuming you keep
it in the same general area)?
>But who will we blame for THAT?
You mean the mis-allocation of resources? Failure of the capitalist
system, dumb politicians, horrible electoral system, dumb voters, poor
education, venal doctors, ... the list is endless.
>Dr. Angell spends some time arguing that drug companies spend all their
>research money on me-too drugs for high blood pressure and depression,
>instead of drugs for killer diseases in third world countries.
<snip>
I basically agree with you (Harris) here, not that I think food is a
good analogy. You belong to the American tribe: you get the benefits
of the American tribe. You don't: we'll nuke you if we feel it's in
our interests. Fortunately for you non-Americans most of the time it
isn't.
What I don't understand is why the drug industry doesn't make use of
the starving Africans to test our drugs. They're starving in Niger at
the moment according to the news. OK round up a few thousand
Niger-ians (hmmm, wonder what they call themselves?), put them in
interment camps, feed them food and feed them (say) Vioxx until it's
coming out their ears. Much better testing than debating the
significance of a few points in some pussy US sample that has so many
flaws you could drive a truck through it. A few die. Shrug! Might want
to follow the lead of Walmart though and use local contractors.
>And so we come to another problem. Just how ARE the public and doctors
>to find out about the latest medical research involving drugs?
>Dr. Angell doesn't like most drug advertising. Certainly not direct
>advertising to patients, so that means she really wants doctors to
>control the information flow. And she doesn't like drug company
>advertising even to doctors when it involves giving them small gifts,
>or even taking up much of their time.
>However, it seems that time reading ads in magazines is not to be
>counted.
>Here is the problem. Dr. Angell was editor of a journal which informs
>doctors of the latest breakthroughs in medicine (that's education!),
>but that journal, the New England Journal of Medicine, would simply not
>survive without massive drug company advertising. Most of their bills
>are paid that way, just like the doctor-education companies that Dr.
>Angell has problems wants to do away with.
<snip a load of ad hominems>
>We'd all like drug companies to not pay for so much medical education,
>myself included. It distorts facts.
Wow, great. Something that Messrs Rubin and Conklin don't seem to get.
The problem with drug-company advertising is not advertising per se
but its combination with rest of the matter in the NEJM and its effect
thereon. If the ads in the NEJM were just for products used by MD's
themselves such as those in the mathematic journals Rubin refers to
and indeed most ads in most professional publications there'd be no
problem. But they're not.
In my view the nearest analogy is to movie reviews. If the publication
carrying the reviews accepts ads from the movie companies their
reviews are worthless. The pressure to avoid offence is irresistible.
Major newspapers sort-of get away with it because, after they stop
laughing about the Chinese wall that supposedly separates the reviewer
from the ad department, they advance three other arguments: the ad
revenue is small in comparison to the integrity of the paper (your ad
is a fleabite); where else will you advertise; and, most movies are
not so bad that it's perfectly fair to find something good to say.
Watch out however when you're dealing with small journals/newspapers.
Serious publications such as The Film Journal accept no movie
advertising.
> But Dr. Angell made her living as a
>broker at this game, and never found a solution for it, except to quit
>or be kicked out. Nor does she really suggest one in her book, either,
>apparently, except that doctors need to spend their own money. As
>though doctors didn't already spend enough on their educations. I don't
>think THAT will work.
Sheesh! Maybe your CONTINUING education is too expensive for you too.
Perhaps you'd be better off installing plumbing or selling stock on
Wall Street. Much as you might like to resist it, the medical business
comes with an obligation to keep up to date (as do the plumbing and
stockbroker businesses BTW). Presently the consumer pays his health
care plan either via a premium or foregone salary for his employer's
portion plus a deductible or co-pay which go into the pockets of the
drug company (via the pharmacy) which go to the NEJM or the like in
the form of advertising dollars which supposedly educates the MD. How
about cutting out the middlemen and have the consumer pay the MD
directly who can then pay a real price for his CONTINUING education?
Oops, we do that already (pay the MD)!
Really though you're talking about nothing. If you depend on ads for
your knowledge of new (or old or me-too) drugs I for one would like
to choose another doctor. Plenty of other (agreed partially corrupt)
sources exist. Even Not-A-Doctor types like myself can find out about
the latest FDA approvals via a personalized email from Medscape each
week. Just a little checking around that site (and there are several
similar others) can give me the drug monographs, comments and articles
from various researchers, and full prescribing information. It's not
exactly brain surgery...er...rocket science <g>.
<snip your drug-company investment fantasy>
| |
|
|
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:C4idnayPfOHPbm_fRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:1123184689.848453.326410@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Interesting, all my posts were supplied with source links and the math
> (correct and decimal error, favoring the other side) were carefully
> explained.
>
> Distinctly unlike the detractors' comments.
>
> Bottom line, regardless of all the uproar, is that amnesia occurs far more
> frequently among Lipitor users than among the general population.
>
> But then, multiple published books and studies alread attest to this. That
> you have some snide and disrespectful comment for each does not diminish
> these well-referenced published sources.
>
>
You are absolutely lying again and again. You did provide multiple reference
but you lied by quoting them falsely.
Did you not say that 2% of people on Lipitor experience Amnesia according to
the Lipitor PI?
Is this not false? If not provide the quote from the Lipitor PI.
Did you not say that .0025% of the General Population experience amnesia?
Is that not false? If not, provide the quote to show that it is true.
Did you not then compare the two false numbers above to each other to come to
your false conclusion without even having any idea if the populations were the
same. (age, race, etc.)
If not, show how you reached your conclusion.
And did you not ignore multiple studies that contradicted your lies?
Bill
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
|
Sharon Hope wrote:
>
> Interesting, all my posts were supplied with source links and the math
> (correct and decimal error, favoring the other side) were carefully
> explained.
COMMENT:
Your "explanations" were faulty. It's not complicated. The incidence of
amnesia for Lipitor is not given exactly in any study. The information
is not formally available anywhere, and all we know about it, is that
it's an incidental reported at less than 2% rate, as are 100 other
miscellaneous side effects. No placebo-controlled study is available
which reports a greater incidence of amnesia in the Lipitor group than
in the placebo group. Thus, there is no good scientific evidence that
Lipitor causes amnesia at all.
I know of no controlled study in which cognitive decline has been
specifically tracked and evaluated for Lipitor. However, for Pravachol
(PROSPER) and simvastatin/Zocor (HPS) there was no difference between
cognative decline in treatment vs. placebo groups. These are sensitive
and large studies which found nothing significant in mental side
effects.
> Bottom line, regardless of all the uproar, is that amnesia occurs far more
> frequently among Lipitor users than among the general population.
COMMENT:
Bottom line is you don't KNOW what the incidence is in Lipitor users.
Nobody does.
Bottom line is even if you DID know what it was in Lipitor users, it
wouldn't mean a thing without a control group to compare it to, since
Lipitor users are preponderantly old sick men with vascular disease.
Their amnesia rates, whatever they are, can be expected to be different
than many other populations whose brain arteries are in better
condition.
Finally, even if you know the incidence AND you had a placebo group to
compare it to, you'd STILL have to apply a correction (such as the
Bonferroni) for multiple post hoc end points, unless you went into the
study a priori looking for amnesia *as an endpoint.* The REASON these
100+ side effects are reported as they are, is that it would be
meaningless to report 100 different p values, since by definition,
about 5 of them would be significant at p < 0.05, just by chance.
Fishing expeditions like the Lipitor marketting trials can't go around
reporting on the p value of 100 randomly reported effects. They CAN be
used to design for definitive trials like Golumbs, but hers won't use
Lipitor anyway. You'll still be stuck with Pravachol and Zocor results.
Ironically.
> But then, multiple published books and studies alread attest to this.
COMMENT:
3 popular books or so might "attest" to it. As for studies, I've yet to
find a well-controlled one that found anything different than placebo,
in any way that was reportable and correctable for the bias of multiple
post hoc tests.
> That
> you have some snide and disrespectful comment for each does not diminish
> these well-referenced published sources.
COMMENT:
No, what diminishes them is the quality of the studies themselves. The
better the design (prospective) and the larger and better randomized
and controlled a statin trial is, I think it's fair to say the less
it's likely to show any effects on mental decline, or indeed mental
effects at all. Either positive or negative. Unless you count the
effects from stroke, in which case (as in PROSPER) the results are
quite spectacular. But all in favor of the statin.
SBH
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
|
MassiveBrainInjury@SleazyISP.edu wrote:
>
> Harris, you're great at pointing out logical fallacies and assigning
> their Latin names (such as "post hoc ergo procter hoc"). How about a
> name for taking an exception and presenting it as the general rule or
> in this case arguing that because some exceptional item deviated from
> the point the author was trying to make that his/her generalized
> argument was totally wrong.
>
> Further, how about a more sophisticated term for disingenuousness?
> Maybe in Latin or the original Greek?
>
> This "Not a doctor of medicine" (or of anything else for that matter),
> little me, can give you two off-the-cuff me-too drugs just out of his
> own knowledge: Cialis and Levitra. Me-too drugs from Lilly and Bayer
> respectively "too-ing" Pfizer's Viagra. [....[ Could we (the consuming
> and largely ignored public) have spent this money more wisely in
> dealing with the other impotency-related problems (presuming you keep
> it in the same general area)?
COMMENT:
Fine, there hasn't been a huge improvement in ED drugs, yet. However,
the field is young, and I think you're behaving in the mode you accuse
me of. I can out-example you, if you want to go point for point, I
promise.
I think my general point stands, and if I gave only a few examples it
wasn't because I only had a few, so you point above is groundless. I
already mentioned beta blockers, penicillins,
thiazolidinones/PPAP-blockers. Here are some more:
Tricyclics: the newer ones are significantly better than amitryptalline
SSRIs: newer ones arguably better than Prozac, though I'm on weak
ground here (I admit it).
Oral hypoglycemic agents that stimulate insulin release: the prototype
sulfonuria drugs once often killed people with severe and prolonged low
glucoses-- there were more deaths from hypoglycemic shock from
chlorpropamide/Diabenese than insulin itself. That no longer happens,
by and large. The newer drugs are a lot safter.
ACE inhibitors--- Captopril was and is a good drug, but the once-a-days
are better and smoother. The same goes for the new once-a-day ATBs.
Cephalosporins-- things have come a long way since Keflex. Whole
classes of bugs that Keflex didn't touch like H.flu and Pseudomonas can
now be treated.
Ever taken erythromycin estolate? Ouch! Then you'll appreciate the
newer macrolydes. The newer tetracylines are a distinct improvement
over plain tetracycline also. Try taking a 4-times a day drug on an
empty stomach, which hurts on an empty stomach.
The high potency steroids are big improvements over trying to use
cortisone skin creme.
The newer flourinated ethers are much less toxic than the original
halothane.
Diflucan is a vast improvement toxicity and brain-penetration-wise over
the old oral ketaconozole.
The newer H2 blockers won't lower your testosterone like cimetidine.
(As for PPIs, I don't think they've improved on Prilosec much, BTW,
that's a point to you)
These are off the top of my head, but without going through the whole
PDR, I'd say that major improvements in drug classes over the prototype
molecular entity are the rule, not the exception. The prototype
fluoroquinolone wasn't really good for anything but UTIs; Anthrax would
have laughed at it. Cipro came later.
We can have a separate argument over this--- I happen to think that our
present patent system which allows the prototype to be displaced by the
Johnny come lately drug in the same class that finally gets it right,
is probably unfair and interferes with innovation. But that's a basic
problem with our world PATENT system which punishes quantum leaps of
innovation. It's not JUST a problem in medicine--- this is medicine's
manifestation of a far larger intellectual property problem. Aim your
invective at the proper target.
> You mean the mis-allocation of resources? Failure of the capitalist
> system, dumb politicians, horrible electoral system, dumb voters, poor
> education, venal doctors, ... the list is endless.
COMMENT:
For YOU, maybe. But I see nobody to blame, because there's not really a
problem. Does anybody complain about "misallocation of resources"
because we have a bunch of "me too" trucks besides the Ford Pickup? Or
SUVs beyond the venerable Blazer and Suburban? Think of how much
development money carmakers squander in not collectively having one or
two good entries in each major car class. Shouldn't we make them all
specialize, and save all of that? And look at what they pay for
advertizing. If they didn't spend all that money during the superbowl,
wouldn't you pay a lot less for major autos? Can we look at money
spent for R&D vs advertising for *automakers?* Do we care?
You seem to think there's something odd about drugs that doesn't apply
to food or cars or any other consummer item. But you have yet to
identify what it is.
> What I don't understand is why the drug industry doesn't make use of
> the starving Africans to test our drugs. They're starving in Niger at
> the moment according to the news. OK round up a few thousand
> Niger-ians (hmmm, wonder what they call themselves?), put them in
> interment camps, feed them food and feed them (say) Vioxx until it's
> coming out their ears. Much better testing than debating the
> significance of a few points in some pussy US sample that has so many
> flaws you could drive a truck through it. A few die. Shrug! Might want
> to follow the lead of Walmart though and use local contractors.
COMMENT:
Your modest proposal is more logical than you know. The antithesis
keeps us from using foreign workers in poor conditions (ie,
"sweatshops"), when the alternative is that their conditions are even
worse when they have no job and starve. But better to have them die
politically correctly than live and be exploited by capitalists.
[Other points addressed later]
SBH
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
| Any and all can see I posted the PI accurately.
Further, I posted the link to the PI.
It was your responses that were not factual.
"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:Q1EIe.1527$SE3.1042@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
> news:C4idnayPfOHPbm_fRVn-pA@comcast.com...
>
> You are absolutely lying again and again. You did provide multiple
> reference but you lied by quoting them falsely.
>
> Did you not say that 2% of people on Lipitor experience Amnesia according
> to the Lipitor PI?
>
> Is this not false? If not provide the quote from the Lipitor PI.
>
> Did you not say that .0025% of the General Population experience amnesia?
>
> Is that not false? If not, provide the quote to show that it is true.
>
> Did you not then compare the two false numbers above to each other to come
> to your false conclusion without even having any idea if the populations
> were the same. (age, race, etc.)
>
> If not, show how you reached your conclusion.
>
> And did you not ignore multiple studies that contradicted your lies?
>
> Bill
>
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123294045.307199.239310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> I know of no controlled study in which cognitive decline has been
> specifically tracked and evaluated for Lipitor.
Muldoon published two controlled studies that tracked and evaluated
cognitive decline with multiple statins.
Dr. Graveline has published 2 well researched, referenced books on Lipitor
amnesia, and has collected an astonishing number of anecdotal reports of
Lipitor amnesia. His own experiences were carefully observed in a hospital.
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123294045.307199.239310@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sharon Hope wrote:
>
> COMMENT:
> 3 popular books or so might "attest" to it. As for studies, I've yet to
> find a well-controlled one that found anything different than placebo,
> in any way that was reportable and correctable for the bias of multiple
> post hoc tests.
>
Again, that loud sucking sound is the lack of any basis for your criticism.
Clearly you have read none of the books. Your remarks make that abundantly
obvious.
Hardly words of wisdom, simply noise.
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> No, what diminishes them is the quality of the studies themselves. The
> better the design (prospective) and the larger and better randomized
> and controlled a statin trial is, I think it's fair to say the less
> it's likely to show any effects on mental decline, or indeed mental
> effects at all. Either positive or negative. Unless you count the
> effects from stroke, in which case (as in PROSPER) the results are
> quite spectacular. But all in favor of the statin.
>
Yet again, no basis for your remarks. No specifics, no links, no
independently verifiable observations. Nothing.
You are compelled to broadcast your dislike of findings of controlled
studies you don't even name, for reasons you cannot specify.
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2005-08-05, 10:56 pm |
| In article <1123297708.544730.26640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>SSRIs: newer ones arguably better than Prozac, though I'm on weak
>ground here (I admit it).
The interesting thing with the SSRIs isn't so much that the
me-too's are better than the lead drug (Prozac). Rather that which
SSRI actually works seems to be very individualized. So, if Prozac
doesn't work at optimal doses and optimal trial times, then another
just might.
It looks as the me-too's weren't.
--
Bloomington, Indiana- A drinking town with a basketball problem.
| |
|
|
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:ofednRLxP7vTtmnfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
> Any and all can see I posted the PI accurately.
>
> Further, I posted the link to the PI.
>
> It was your responses that were not factual.
>
>
In addition to your lies about the Lipitor PI you have been unable to respond
to any of the following:
Did you not say that .0025% of the General Population experience amnesia?
Is that not false? If not, provide the quote to show that it is true.
Did you not then compare the two false numbers above to each other to come to
your false conclusion without even having any idea if the populations were the
same. (age, race, etc.)
If not, show how you reached your conclusion.
And did you not ignore multiple studies that contradicted your lies?
> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:Q1EIe.1527$SE3.1042@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
>
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-06, 9:08 am |
|
MassiveBrainInjury@SleazyISP.edu wrote:
>
> Wow, great. Something that Messrs Rubin and Conklin don't seem to get.
> The problem with drug-company advertising is not advertising per se
> but its combination with rest of the matter in the NEJM and its effect
> thereon. If the ads in the NEJM were just for products used by MD's
> themselves such as those in the mathematic journals Rubin refers to
> and indeed most ads in most professional publications there'd be no
> problem. But they're not.
COMMENT:
You'll have to explain this. Ads in journals for professionals are
only for things the professionals use THEMSELVES? Rather than (say)
stick their professional clients with? Say what? If Rubin buys stat
software, his next client gets stuck with him and it also. And his job
as a professional may well involve having to recommend software to
others, even if he doesn't come with it. It's a common problem. I don't
see that it's any purer if the professional sells you the secondary
stuff along with his services, than if he recommends it AS his service.
> In my view the nearest analogy is to movie reviews. If the publication
> carrying the reviews accepts ads from the movie companies their
> reviews are worthless. The pressure to avoid offence is irresistible.
> Major newspapers sort-of get away with it because, after they stop
> laughing about the Chinese wall that supposedly separates the reviewer
> from the ad department, they advance three other arguments: the ad
> revenue is small in comparison to the integrity of the paper (your ad
> is a fleabite); where else will you advertise; and, most movies are
> not so bad that it's perfectly fair to find something good to say.
> Watch out however when you're dealing with small journals/newspapers.
> Serious publications such as The Film Journal accept no movie
> advertising.
COMMENT:
Just as Consumer Reports accepts none. But only because they need to
LOOK purer than Caeser's wife, not necessarily because they'd actually
be corrupted by it, if they did. There are, after all, a LOT of
consumer products out there, and both Consumer Reports and medical
journals in truth have the same defenses as the newspapers-- all pretty
good ones, as you point out, though none perfectly airtight.
> Sheesh! Maybe your CONTINUING education is too expensive for you too.
> Perhaps you'd be better off installing plumbing or selling stock on
> Wall Street. Much as you might like to resist it, the medical business
> comes with an obligation to keep up to date (as do the plumbing and
> stockbroker businesses BTW). Presently the consumer pays his health
> care plan either via a premium or foregone salary for his employer's
> portion plus a deductible or co-pay which go into the pockets of the
> drug company (via the pharmacy) which go to the NEJM or the like in
> the form of advertising dollars which supposedly educates the MD. How
> about cutting out the middlemen and have the consumer pay the MD
> directly who can then pay a real price for his CONTINUING education?
> Oops, we do that already (pay the MD)!
COMMENT:
So? I think you're making the point that you pay either way for it.
Yes, drug companies are middle men. On the other hand, running some
fraction of medical education through them has the charm of
differentially loading SOME OF the burden of doing the cost of the
information processing work, upon the people who benefit from it, which
is to say those who use the product.
> Really though you're talking about nothing. If you depend on ads for
> your knowledge of new (or old or me-too) drugs I for one would like
> to choose another doctor. Plenty of other (agreed partially corrupt)
> sources exist. Even Not-A-Doctor types like myself can find out about
> the latest FDA approvals via a personalized email from Medscape each
> week. Just a little checking around that site (and there are several
> similar others) can give me the drug monographs, comments and articles
> from various researchers, and full prescribing information. It's not
> exactly brain surgery...er...rocket science <g>.
COMMENT:
Yes, but the balancing of all this, can be. Medscape is a totally
commercial site, of course. YOU may not pay them, but they're funded by
advertising, just like your standard channel TV. Most is pharm
advertising (the WebMD part). I don't know how much is skimmed off the
Emdeon practice management people who now actually own the company and
advertise their services to docs, not patients (mostly). But my guess
is they keep the WebMD part paying for itself.
In any case, the other point I want to make, is you get what you pay
for. You as citizen at large may get the drug monographs and FDA
approvals sent to you, but it takes a fair amount of sophistication to
get much out of them, and certainly so to get most of what they offer,
out of them. You can have LexisNexis send you various digests of legal
stuff, too. None of this equips you to be your own attorney-- all it
does is familiarize you with the way they think and what questions to
ask.
You can read the PI from the PDR like Sharon, and have it go right over
your head. The problem is not intelligence (I think she actually has a
background in programming), but she's just missing the needed
background in biology, statistics, and study design.
The insidious thing about the drug companies (as we agree) is that--
even if you do have the background to get what they are saying--- they
don't just provide information but do pre-processing, too. This by
paying other professionals in the field to do it, and it's very hard
(actually impossible) to get around this bias. Not that all professions
don't have the same problem, of course. Nothing special about medicine
there, except the size of the pot (size of the business). Can you
believe anything written by a biologist employed by an oil company? But
won't a biologist employed by Harvard have the other built in baggage
and bias? If you're a climatologist and hold a politically incorrect
opinion about global warming, your NOAA grants may well disappear, and
in academia, funding is power and quite often eventual tenure. Many a
scientist has to be very careful about opinions, and we haven't even
gotten to the average profession, let alone to the law or politics. So
again, I'm a little unclear as to why doctors of medicine should come
in for undue heat. Most of us have far more freedom to express our
honest opinions and act on them, than most employees of government OR
academia, let alone business. If we end up getting biased, it's
usually by a rather small amount considering who our detractors often
work for.
SBH
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-06, 9:08 am |
|
Kurt Ullman wrote:
> In article <1123297708.544730.26640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> The interesting thing with the SSRIs isn't so much that the
> me-too's are better than the lead drug (Prozac). Rather that which
> SSRI actually works seems to be very individualized. So, if Prozac
> doesn't work at optimal doses and optimal trial times, then another
> just might.
> It looks as the me-too's weren't.
COMMENT:
A good point. And the same goes for the many NSAIDS (even in the days
when they are all more or less non-selective), each with its crowd of
diehard fans. It's true also for any of the many blood-pressure pills,
and so on. And for the statins, where one man's Persian is another
man's Meade, or something like that. For all kinds of other
supposedly-equivalent drugs, as anybody who's tried to work with a
limited formulary knows, there are differences that make all the
difference to somebody. No, this isn't *all* just a matter of fashion
and placebo effect; blinded studies show there's also a big interaction
with people's basic genetics and very specific small changes in
molecular moeties.
Sigh. When the alternative-medicine boosters aren't complaining that
orthodox docs are too cookie-cutter and not wholistic enough, they're
complaining about all those redundant "me-too" drugs being developed.
 They don't know how bad it could truly be.
SBH
[And the Canadians, when not complaining about this week's polypharmacy
or side-effect disaster, are proudly proclaiming that they have access
to just as many drugs as Americans, and cheaper, too. ) ]
SBH
| |
| Kurt Ullman 2005-08-06, 9:08 am |
| In article <1123303505.973595.251880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>[And the Canadians, when not complaining about this week's polypharmacy
>or side-effect disaster, are proudly proclaiming that they have access
>to just as many drugs as Americans, and cheaper, too. ) ]
>
There is a line of studies, BTW, showing that generics are
actually MORE expensive in Canada than in the US. No price controls
no advantage.
--
Bloomington, Indiana- A drinking town with a basketball problem.
| |
| David Rind 2005-08-06, 9:08 am |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
> SSRIs: newer ones arguably better than Prozac, though I'm on weak
> ground here (I admit it).
> The newer H2 blockers won't lower your testosterone like cimetidine.
> (As for PPIs, I don't think they've improved on Prilosec much, BTW,
> that's a point to you)
The SSRIs and the PPIs are good examples of really irresponsible
behavior by the drug manufacturers. In both cases, a single stereoisomer
with no apparent advantages over the racemic compound has been pushed
hard as the racemic compound moved toward going off patent.
Nexium/Prilosec is probably the best example of this, but Lexapro/Celexa
is a close second.
And the marketing works. The manufacturers seem to have convinced both
doctors and patients that Nexium is more effective than Prilosec.
However there is essentially nothing in the studies to suggest this
other than the sort of absurd interpretation of studies performed by
people with an interest in a specific outcome. The real benefit of
Nexium is indicated best on this medical humor website:
www.qfever.com/20010801/nexium.html
--
David Rind
drind@caregroup.harvard.edu
| |
|
|
David Rind wrote:
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> The SSRIs and the PPIs are good examples of really irresponsible
> behavior by the drug manufacturers. In both cases, a single stereoisomer
> with no apparent advantages over the racemic compound has been pushed
> hard as the racemic compound moved toward going off patent.
> Nexium/Prilosec is probably the best example of this, but Lexapro/Celexa
> is a close second.
>
> And the marketing works. The manufacturers seem to have convinced both
> doctors and patients that Nexium is more effective than Prilosec.
> However there is essentially nothing in the studies to suggest this
> other than the sort of absurd interpretation of studies performed by
> people with an interest in a specific outcome. The real benefit of
> Nexium is indicated best on this medical humor website:
> www.qfever.com/20010801/nexium.html
>
> --
> David Rind
> drind@caregroup.harvard.edu
Hello David!
http://healthyskepticism.org/public.../2004/1018b.htm
| |
| bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu 2005-08-06, 5:55 pm |
| In article <1123303505.973595.251880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>[And the Canadians, when not complaining about this week's polypharmacy
>or side-effect disaster, are proudly proclaiming that they have access
>to just as many drugs as Americans, and cheaper, too. ) ]
Steve, you've said:
One Canadian says A.
Another Canadian says not A.
and you conclude:
All Canadians are inconsistent idiots who claim A and not A
simultaneously.
In earlier postings you've claimed:
Jews are genetically smarter than everybody else.
Jews are almost all socialists.
and implied that
Socialists are stupid and deluded.
You also posted a "joke" that claimed that only stupid, sentimental and
irrational people ("liberals") would object to the notion that killing
many thousands of unarmed civilians in retaliation for the violent
actions of a few individuals was moral and justified. The joke implied
that such massive retaliation was identical to killing the individual
perpetrators themselves. How was this relevant to sci.med?
You're a knowledgable and intelligent man, Dr. Harris, and I value the
technical material you post to sci.med. However, as at least one of
your colleagues has pointed out, you're letting your prejudices and
political opinions overwhelm the considerable value of the scientific
information and opinions you present.
If you've got to make great sweeping generalizations about the
characteristics and opinions of groups of many millions of people, you
might at least try to be consistent about them, or perhaps confine the
political stuff to the talk.politics group. Sinking to the level of
your opponents is not the way to win the respect of onlookers to a
debate.
I really don't want to killfile you. I hope you're not in some early
stage of the process that transformed Dr. Chung from a knowledgable
source of information about cardiology to the irrational fanatic he's
gradually become.
At any rate, think about this, or not, as you please. I'm not
attacking you. I'm trying to point out a direction of drift in your
postings which you may not be aware of, and may wish not to continue.
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-06, 10:55 pm |
|
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1123297708.544730.26640@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> MassiveBrainInjury@SleazyISP.edu wrote:
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Fine, there hasn't been a huge improvement in ED drugs, yet. However,
> the field is young, and I think you're behaving in the mode you accuse
> me of. I can out-example you, if you want to go point for point, I
> promise.
>
> I think my general point stands, and if I gave only a few examples it
> wasn't because I only had a few, so you point above is groundless. I
> already mentioned beta blockers, penicillins,
> thiazolidinones/PPAP-blockers. Here are some more:
>
> Tricyclics: the newer ones are significantly better than amitryptalline
>
> SSRIs: newer ones arguably better than Prozac, though I'm on weak
> ground here (I admit it).
>
> Oral hypoglycemic agents that stimulate insulin release: the prototype
> sulfonuria drugs once often killed people with severe and prolonged low
> glucoses-- there were more deaths from hypoglycemic shock from
> chlorpropamide/Diabenese than insulin itself. That no longer happens,
> by and large. The newer drugs are a lot safter.
>
> ACE inhibitors--- Captopril was and is a good drug, but the once-a-days
> are better and smoother. The same goes for the new once-a-day ATBs.
>
> Cephalosporins-- things have come a long way since Keflex. Whole
> classes of bugs that Keflex didn't touch like H.flu and Pseudomonas can
> now be treated.
>
> Ever taken erythromycin estolate? Ouch! Then you'll appreciate the
> newer macrolydes. The newer tetracylines are a distinct improvement
> over plain tetracycline also. Try taking a 4-times a day drug on an
> empty stomach, which hurts on an empty stomach.
>
> The high potency steroids are big improvements over trying to use
> cortisone skin creme.
>
> The newer flourinated ethers are much less toxic than the original
> halothane.
>
> Diflucan is a vast improvement toxicity and brain-penetration-wise over
> the old oral ketaconozole.
>
> The newer H2 blockers won't lower your testosterone like cimetidine.
> (As for PPIs, I don't think they've improved on Prilosec much, BTW,
> that's a point to you)
>
> These are off the top of my head, but without going through the whole
> PDR, I'd say that major improvements in drug classes over the prototype
> molecular entity are the rule, not the exception. The prototype
> fluoroquinolone wasn't really good for anything but UTIs; Anthrax would
> have laughed at it. Cipro came later.
>
> We can have a separate argument over this--- I happen to think that our
> present patent system which allows the prototype to be displaced by the
> Johnny come lately drug in the same class that finally gets it right,
> is probably unfair and interferes with innovation. But that's a basic
> problem with our world PATENT system which punishes quantum leaps of
> innovation. It's not JUST a problem in medicine--- this is medicine's
> manifestation of a far larger intellectual property problem. Aim your
> invective at the proper target.
>
>
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> For YOU, maybe. But I see nobody to blame, because there's not really a
> problem. Does anybody complain about "misallocation of resources"
> because we have a bunch of "me too" trucks besides the Ford Pickup? Or
> SUVs beyond the venerable Blazer and Suburban? Think of how much
> development money carmakers squander in not collectively having one or
> two good entries in each major car class. Shouldn't we make them all
> specialize, and save all of that? And look at what they pay for
> advertizing. If they didn't spend all that money during the superbowl,
> wouldn't you pay a lot less for major autos? Can we look at money
> spent for R&D vs advertising for *automakers?* Do we care?
>
> You seem to think there's something odd about drugs that doesn't apply
> to food or cars or any other consummer item. But you have yet to
> identify what it is.
>
Do you have any patients who are alive?
>
>
> COMMENT:
>
> Your modest proposal is more logical than you know. The antithesis
> keeps us from using foreign workers in poor conditions (ie,
> "sweatshops"), when the alternative is that their conditions are even
> worse when they have no job and starve. But better to have them die
> politically correctly than live and be exploited by capitalists.
>
>
> [Other points addressed later]
>
> SBH
>
| |
| Sharon Hope 2005-08-06, 10:55 pm |
| The post:
>===start quoted post=========
>Newsgroups: sci.med.cardiology
>Sent: Saturday, July 23, 2005 1:51 PM
>Subject: Lipitor users experience Amnesia 38,461% more frequently than the
>normal >population
> In a recent discussion, I was reminded that the PI for Lipitor mentions
> Amnesia as a known adverse effect at a rate ~2% or less.
>
> BTW, all the statin drugs have similar adverse effects, so that would
> include Atorvastatin (aka Lipitor), fluvastatin (aka Lescol), lovastatin
> (aka Mevacor), pravastatin (aka Pravachol), simvastatin (aka Zocor),
> rosuvastatin (aka Crestor), and cerivastatin (Baycol), and now Vytorin
> (Zocor and Zetia (ezetimibe/simvastatin) combination). All are known to
> cause transient global amnesia and cognitive damage.
>
> OK, let's put this into perspective.
>
> Also, unless amnesia is witnessed, it is not recognized. The person
> experiencing it typically does not remember. Since no all Lipitor
> patients
> in the study were monitored 24x7, the 2% would only be those who suffered
> amnesia, AND were observed by someone who knew them well enough to know
> they
> had lost their memory, AND it was reported to Pfizer, AND someone
> associated
> with the study decided to add it to the list of known AEs. For example,
> many Lipitor patients report 'big holes' in their memory, but they do not
> use the term 'amnesia' when discussing or describing it.
>
> Do you think there are 2 in every 100 people NOT on statins running around
> with amnesia? 2 people in 100 experiencing AMNESIA is an exceedingly high
> percentage.
>
> 2% on Lipitor experience Amnesia
>
> 0.0052% of the normal population experiences Amnesia (5.2 per 100,000
> people)
>
> 23.5% of the over 50 years old population experiences Amnesia (23.5 per
> 100,000 people)
SH: This was incorrect math, should have been 0.0235% for 50 years and
over - but then the parameters were given, as was the link they came from,
so any and all could check, and correct if necessary, the calculation.
>
> So, that equates to:
>
> People on LIPITOR have THREE HUNDRED EIGHTY FOUR TIMES THE RATE OF AMNESIA
> OVER THE GENERAL POPULATION.
>
> Lipitor users have 384.6 TIMES the normal frequency of
> Amnesia!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> That is 38,461% MORE AMNESIA than people NOT on Lipitor!
>
> People on LIPITOR have EIGHTY FIVE TIMES THE RATE OF AMNESIA OVER THE
> GENERAL OVER 50 POPULATION.
>
> Lipitor users have 85 TIMES the normal frequency of people over
> 50!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> That is 8,500% of the incidence of amnesia among the normal over 50
> population!
>
>
> Reference for rate in the NORMAL population:
> Frequency:
>
> a.. In the US: Based on data from Rochester, Minnesota, Miller et al
> determined an incidence of 5.2 per 100,000. However, among individuals
> older
> than 50 years, the incidence was 23.5 per 100,000 per year.
> per http://www.emedicine.com/neuro/topic380.htm
>
> Transient Global Amnesia
> Last updated April 21, 2005
> Synonyms and related keywords: transient memory loss, paroxysmal loss of
> memory, transient loss of memory, immediate recall ability, remote memory,
> retrograde memory loss, semantic memory, syntax memory, visual-spatial
> skills, amnesia, TGA, vertebrobasilar system, migraine variant, temporal
> lobe seizure, transient ischemic attack, emotional stress, cold-water
> exposure, Valsalva maneuver, venous anatomy anomalies, jugular vein
> valves,
> ischemia to memory areas in brain, back-pressure in jugular venous system,
> disruption of intracranial arterial flow, increased sympathetic activity,
> increased intrathoracic pressure, disrupted blood flow to thalamic
> structures, disrupted blood flow to mesial temporal structures, increased
> venous return to superior vena cava
>
> BTW, all the statin drugs have similar adverse effects, so that would
> include
>
>===end quoted post=========
"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:bqWIe.197$bV2.181@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
> news:ofednRLxP7vTtmnfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
>
> In addition to your lies about the Lipitor PI you have been unable to
> respond to any of the following:
>
> Did you not say that .0025% of the General Population experience amnesia?
>
> Is that not false? If not, provide the quote to show that it is true.
>
> Did you not then compare the two false numbers above to each other to come
> to your false conclusion without even having any idea if the populations
> were the same. (age, race, etc.)
What part of "the general population" don't you understand?
>
> If not, show how you reached your conclusion.
>
> And did you not ignore multiple studies that contradicted your lies?
Again, you have pretended something that, if it existed, you would be able
to supply links for. Further, conflicting studies exist in many areas. So
what?
The >2% comes from Pfizer on the Lipitor PI, so, once again, if you see that
as a lie, you should complain to the FDA and to Pfizer, as it would be their
lie.
>
>
>
>
| |
|
|
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:jcCdnZon6e1Yw2jfRVn-vQ@comcast.com...
> The post:
>
>
It does say 2% or less. That could be 1 in a million. You assumed 2% and
continued to defend that - saying that is what the PI says. That is wrong.
[vbcol=seagreen]
You see your error. What you say here contridicts what you say directly above.
[vbcol=seagreen]
That is also false. The original study said:
"Transient global amnesia: clinical characteristics and prognosis.
Miller JW, Petersen RC, Metter EJ, Millikan CH, Yanagihara T.
We studied the clinical characteristics of transient global amnesia (TGA) in
277 patients with an average follow-up of 80 months. The syndrome occurred
most frequently after age 50. There was a history of migraine in 14.1% and
cerebrovascular diseases in 11.2% of patients, but these conditions were
usually not temporally linked to TGA. Characteristic antecedent events and
activity such as exertion existed in 33.4%. The incidence of TGA was 5.2 per
100,000 per year in Rochester, MN. Although 23.8% of the patients had
recurrent episodes, they were not at increased risk for subsequent stroke."
What they are talking about is Transient Global amnesia. Is that not true? It
says it right there. This is a particular type of Amnesia. You can not claim
that TGA = all forms of amnesia. Further the population of Rochester is not
represenitive of the US.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> SH: This was incorrect math, should have been 0.0235% for 50 years and
> over - but then the parameters were given, as was the link they came from,
> so any and all could check, and correct if necessary, the calculation.
> "Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:bqWIe.197$bV2.181@newssvr22.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
> What part of "the general population" don't you understand?
>
>
I understand that. The study was in Rochester and you have no idea of the
population of the Lipitor study. You lied about it again and again. You have
no quote that says .0052% of the general population experiences amnesia. If
you, do supply it. You just make things up and then make irrelevant comments
about them as if it were some sort of argument.
You also have nothing to say that the Lipitor study reflected the same
population. If you do supply it.
You also have nothing to support your claim that 2% of Lipitor users
experience amnesia.
So you compare 2 false numbers with populations that you have not proved to be
the same to come up with a false conclusion,
What about the above is incorrect?
>
>
> Again, you have pretended something that, if it existed, you would be able
> to supply links for. Further, conflicting studies exist in many areas. So
> what?
>
You don't have a study. I have provided this link several times and quoted the
entire text.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458867_print
"Statin-Associated Memory Loss: Analysis of 60 Case Reports and Review of the
Literature
Leslie R. Wagstaff, Pharm.D., Melinda W. Mitton, Pharm.D., Beth McLendon
Arvik, Pharm.D., P. Murali Doraiswamy, M.D.
Pharmacotherapy 23(7):871-880, 2003. © 2003 Pharmacotherapy Publications
Posted 07/25/2003"
"Conclusion: Current literature is conflicting with regard to the effects of
statins on memory loss. Experimental studies support links between cholesterol
intake and amyloid synthesis; observational studies indicate that patients
receiving statins have a reduced risk of dementia. However, available
prospective studies show no cognitive or antiamyloid benefits for any statin.
In addition, case reports raise the possibility that statins, in rare cases,
may be associated with cognitive impairment, though causality is not certain."
"The cardiovascular benefits of statins are established; we reviewed the
emerging links between statins and human memory. Research using MedWatch data
has many limitations, such as incomplete data, lack of controls, and various
biases, such as detection or attribution bias. Nevertheless, MedWatch reports
can provide a signal for infrequent adverse events. In particular, the reports
of statin-associated memory loss suggest that some patients may experience
subjective memory loss after statin therapy is begun. In some patients the
memory loss appeared to resolve after discontinuation of the statin. The
relationship between statin dosage, lipid levels, and memory loss could not be
determined in our series because of lack of information. More reports of
memory loss were associated with lipophilic statins (e.g., atorvastatin and
simvastatin), although it is not clear whether atorvastatin actually crosses
the blood-brain barrier. Until causality is assessed in more rigorous studies,
awareness of this issue may help clinicians better counsel patients and
improve monitoring of adverse events.
Neither observational studies nor case reports can prove causality. There is
no prospective evidence of any neurocognitive benefits or risks associated
with statins. Overall, statins clearly offer substantial cardiovascular
benefits, and a small number of case reports of memory loss should not
discourage appropriate statin administration. Because cholesterol synthesis is
essential for neuronal function, greater attention to cognitive outcomes in
patients receiving statins is warranted, especially in populations already at
risk for memory loss. Although the evidence does not yet support routine
administration of serial bedside memory tests in otherwise healthy patients
receiving statins, clinicians must be able to detect memory changes among
their patients and routinely inquire about mental status. Given the high
background rate of memory loss in the population receiving statins,
prospective controlled studies comparing the short- and long-term effects of
various statins on cognitive function are warranted."
It gives an analysis of many articles on the topic pro and con. You may wish
to look through its references particularly
1.. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group. MRC/BHF heart protection
study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk
individuals: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 2002;360:7-22.
> The >2% comes from Pfizer on the Lipitor PI, so, once again, if you see that
> as a lie, you should complain to the FDA and to Pfizer, as it would be their
> lie.
>
>
I provided the quote for you showing showing that is not true. The PI said it
was less than 2%. You provide a quote showing it is 2% or greater since you
are making the claim.
Here is a link. Anyone can check out if you or I am lying.
http://www.lipitor.com/Images/Lipitor/Lipitor_PI.pdf
This shows what you do. It clearly says less than 2%, But you claim it says
greater than or equal to 2%. It is on page 4 just after table 7 and I urge all
to check it out.
Bill
>
>
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-07, 9:06 am |
|
bae@cs.toronto.no-uce.edu wrote:
> In article <1123303505.973595.251880@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
> Steve, you've said:
>
> One Canadian says A.
> Another Canadian says not A.
> and you conclude:
> All Canadians are inconsistent idiots who claim A and not A
> simultaneously.
COMMENT:
Seems to me I remember at least one Canadian ("Zee Walanga") who did
hold both positions. But don't make me go back through her messages to
prove it; it's too nauseating.
> In earlier postings you've claimed:
>
> Jews are genetically smarter than everybody else.
> Jews are almost all socialists.
> and implied that
> Socialists are stupid and deluded.
[snip]
>
> You're a knowledgable and intelligent man, Dr. Harris, and I value the
> technical material you post to sci.med. However, as at least one of
> your colleagues has pointed out, you're letting your prejudices and
> political opinions overwhelm the considerable value of the scientific
> information and opinions you present.
COMMENT:
Ooooh, you almost goaded me into a long and probably politically
incorrect diatribe, there. But then, only one paragraph away, you shot
your own argument right in the foot! If you'd just put those two
paragraphs in separate messages, they would have individually been far
more effective. As it is, looking at them together I can simply answer
that a not completely naive "explanation" is that I'm not the only
intelligent person for which this is true. Certainly YOU believe it's
possible. So there you are. Happy?
And here's a shocker: Not only is it possible, but you may not be
immune yourself, Spocko.
Look, it's always difficult to assess one's only irrational prejudices
(vs rational prejudices), except possibly through lens of time.
Oppenheimer blamed his early flirtations with Communism on youthful
curiousity. Einstein wrote widely about socialism for newspapers and
claimed it was the most rational political outlook. But at the end of
his life he said he knew a little about physics but nothing about
people and politics. And he was only being a little modest.
Perhaps I'll have a chance to repent of some of my opinions later in MY
life. Meanwhile, I call them as I see them.
> You also posted a "joke" that claimed that only stupid, sentimental and
> irrational people ("liberals") would object to the notion that killing
> many thousands of unarmed civilians in retaliation for the violent
> actions of a few individuals was moral and justified. The joke implied
> that such massive retaliation was identical to killing the individual
> perpetrators themselves. How was this relevant to sci.med?
COMMENT:
Search me! I don't remember the incident or the joke, and you'll have
to remind me (you're being very oblique here).
You may be keeping better track of my writings than I do. Which would
be... weird.
More on the rest of your post, which really merits a separate response,
in another message.
SBH
| |
| Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com 2005-08-07, 9:06 am |
|
David Rind wrote:
> Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
>
>
> The SSRIs and the PPIs are good examples of really irresponsible
> behavior by the drug manufacturers. In both cases, a single stereoisomer
> with no apparent advantages over the racemic compound has been pushed
> hard as the racemic compound moved toward going off patent.
> Nexium/Prilosec is probably the best example of this, but Lexapro/Celexa
> is a close second.
>
> And the marketing works. The manufacturers | | |