Re: FDA Calls Crestor Ads 'False and Misleading'

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by Daniel Ganek, Dec 23, 2004.

  1. Daniel Ganek

    Daniel Ganek Guest

    TC wrote:
    > RobJ wrote:
    >
    >>New York Times
    >>December 23, 2004
    >>
    >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and Misleading'
    >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    >>
    >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper advertisements
    >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain about
    >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    >>
    >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug Administration
    >>to AstraZeneca.

    [[ SNIP ]]
    >
    > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is doing
    > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    >
    > TC
    >


    I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?

    Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job and
    letting drugs on the market too soon!

    /dan
     
    Tags:


  2. TC

    TC Guest

    Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > TC wrote:
    > > RobJ wrote:
    > >
    > >>New York Times
    > >>December 23, 2004
    > >>
    > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and

    Misleading'
    > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > >>
    > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper

    advertisements
    > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain

    about
    > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > >>
    > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug

    Administration
    > >>to AstraZeneca.

    > [[ SNIP ]]
    > >
    > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is

    doing
    > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > >
    > > TC
    > >

    >
    > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    >
    > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job

    and
    > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    >
    > /dan


    Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    pharma industry.

    TC
     
  3. Mark Probert

    Mark Probert Guest

    "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > > TC wrote:
    > > > RobJ wrote:
    > > >
    > > >>New York Times
    > > >>December 23, 2004
    > > >>
    > > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and

    > Misleading'
    > > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > > >>
    > > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper

    > advertisements
    > > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain

    > about
    > > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > > >>
    > > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug

    > Administration
    > > >>to AstraZeneca.

    > > [[ SNIP ]]
    > > >
    > > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is

    > doing
    > > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > > >
    > > > TC
    > > >

    > >
    > > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    > >
    > > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job

    > and
    > > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    > >
    > > /dan

    >
    > Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    > pharma industry.


    "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no relief.
    "We" demanded a shorter process.
     
  4. Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > TC wrote:
    > > RobJ wrote:
    > >
    > >>New York Times
    > >>December 23, 2004
    > >>
    > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and

    Misleading'
    > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > >>
    > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper

    advertisements
    > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain

    about
    > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > >>
    > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug

    Administration
    > >>to AstraZeneca.

    > [[ SNIP ]]
    > >
    > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is

    doing
    > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > >
    > > TC
    > >

    >
    > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    >
    > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job

    and
    > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    >
    > /dan


    There really is no pleasing everybody so it is wiser to simply seek out
    God's will.

    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  5. MrPepper11

    MrPepper11 Guest

    Remember Rezulin - the "miracle" diabetes pill on the FDA's fast-track
    approval, now cited as a suspect in at least 556 deaths. But heck, it
    made $2.1 billion in sales for Warner-Lambert.
    The sordid tale is still online at http://www.latimes.com/rezulin
     
  6. Mike

    Mike Guest

    "Mark Probert" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]
    >
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > > > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > > > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    > > >
    > > > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job

    > > and
    > > > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    > > >
    > > > /dan

    > >
    > > Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    > > pharma industry.

    >
    > "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    > development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no relief.
    > "We" demanded a shorter process.


    If you haven't already, read "Against Leviathan: Government
    Power and a Free Society" by Robert Higgs. It's a real eye
    opener..

    The FDA is as corrupt if not more corrupt than any other
    government bureacracy, such as the DEA and other domestic
    terrorist organizations.
     
  7. James Stein

    James Stein Guest

    "Mark Probert" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >>
    >> Daniel Ganek wrote:
    >> > TC wrote:
    >> > > RobJ wrote:
    >> > >
    >> > >>New York Times
    >> > >>December 23, 2004
    >> > >>
    >> > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and

    >> Misleading'
    >> > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    >> > >>
    >> > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper

    >> advertisements
    >> > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    >> > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain

    >> about
    >> > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    >> > >>
    >> > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    >> > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    >> > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    >> > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug

    >> Administration
    >> > >>to AstraZeneca.
    >> > [[ SNIP ]]
    >> > >
    >> > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is

    >> doing
    >> > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    >> > >
    >> > > TC
    >> > >
    >> >
    >> > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    >> > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    >> >
    >> > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job

    >> and
    >> > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    >> >
    >> > /dan

    >>
    >> Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    >> pharma industry.

    >
    > "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    > development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no
    > relief.
    > "We" demanded a shorter process.


    You should know by now: The ideal FDA needs to approve all effective safe
    drugs overnight, and will catch all harmful and ineffective drugs
    immediately.

    And that little nonsense about a process for distinguishing between the two?
    The public's not concerned with that.
     
  8. Mark Probert

    Mark Probert Guest

    "James Stein" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >
    > "Mark Probert" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > >> > TC wrote:
    > >> > > RobJ wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> > >>New York Times
    > >> > >>December 23, 2004
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and
    > >> Misleading'
    > >> > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper
    > >> advertisements
    > >> > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > >> > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain
    > >> about
    > >> > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > >> > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > >> > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > >> > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug
    > >> Administration
    > >> > >>to AstraZeneca.
    > >> > [[ SNIP ]]
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is
    > >> doing
    > >> > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > >> > >
    > >> > > TC
    > >> > >
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > >> > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    > >> >
    > >> > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job
    > >> and
    > >> > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    > >> >
    > >> > /dan
    > >>
    > >> Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    > >> pharma industry.

    > >
    > > "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    > > development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no
    > > relief.
    > > "We" demanded a shorter process.

    >
    > You should know by now: The ideal FDA needs to approve all effective safe
    > drugs overnight, and will catch all harmful and ineffective drugs
    > immediately.
    >
    > And that little nonsense about a process for distinguishing between the

    two?
    > The public's not concerned with that.


    Agreed. There are those who expect perfection from the FDA and all
    humankind.
     
  9. Mark Probert wrote:
    >
    > "James Stein" <NoSpamForM[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "Mark Probert" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > > >
    > > > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > > news:[email protected]
    > > >>
    > > >> Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > > >> > TC wrote:
    > > >> > > RobJ wrote:
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > >>New York Times
    > > >> > >>December 23, 2004
    > > >> > >>
    > > >> > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and
    > > >> Misleading'
    > > >> > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > > >> > >>
    > > >> > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper
    > > >> advertisements
    > > >> > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > > >> > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain
    > > >> about
    > > >> > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > > >> > >>
    > > >> > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > > >> > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > > >> > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > > >> > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug
    > > >> Administration
    > > >> > >>to AstraZeneca.
    > > >> > [[ SNIP ]]
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is
    > > >> doing
    > > >> > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > > >> > >
    > > >> > > TC
    > > >> > >
    > > >> >
    > > >> > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > > >> > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    > > >> >
    > > >> > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job
    > > >> and
    > > >> > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    > > >> >
    > > >> > /dan
    > > >>
    > > >> Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    > > >> pharma industry.
    > > >
    > > > "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    > > > development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no
    > > > relief.
    > > > "We" demanded a shorter process.

    > >
    > > You should know by now: The ideal FDA needs to approve all effective safe
    > > drugs overnight, and will catch all harmful and ineffective drugs
    > > immediately.
    > >
    > > And that little nonsense about a process for distinguishing between the

    > two?
    > > The public's not concerned with that.

    >
    > Agreed. There are those who expect perfection from the FDA and all
    > humankind.



    Enter Christ Jesus :)


    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  10. James Stein wrote:
    >
    > "Mark Probert" <Mark [email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    > >
    > > "TC" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > > news:[email protected]
    > >>
    > >> Daniel Ganek wrote:
    > >> > TC wrote:
    > >> > > RobJ wrote:
    > >> > >
    > >> > >>New York Times
    > >> > >>December 23, 2004
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>F.D.A. Calls Ads for Cholesterol Pill Crestor 'False and
    > >> Misleading'
    > >> > >>By GARDINER HARRIS
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>WASHINGTON - AstraZeneca's recent full-page newspaper
    > >> advertisements
    > >> > >>defending the safety of its cholesterol-lowering pill, Crestor, are
    > >> > >>"false and misleading," in part because serious concerns remain
    > >> about
    > >> > >>the safety of the drug, federal drug regulators said Wednesday.
    > >> > >>
    > >> > >>The advertisements stated that "the F.D.A. has confidence in the
    > >> > >>safety and efficacy of Crestor" and that the agency "as recently as
    > >> > >>last Friday publicly confirmed that Crestor is safe and effective."
    > >> > >>Neither is true, said a letter from the Food and Drug
    > >> Administration
    > >> > >>to AstraZeneca.
    > >> > [[ SNIP ]]
    > >> > >
    > >> > > Lookee, lookee, the FDA is actually trying to look as if it is
    > >> doing
    > >> > > something useful now. Too little too late, eh?
    > >> > >
    > >> > > TC
    > >> > >
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    > >> > ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    > >> >
    > >> > Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job
    > >> and
    > >> > letting drugs on the market too soon!
    > >> >
    > >> > /dan
    > >>
    > >> Were we? I don't think so. Unless by "we" you are talking about the
    > >> pharma industry.

    > >
    > > "We" were. "We" being people who were hearing about treatments in the
    > > development stages for conditions where there was no treatment or no
    > > relief.
    > > "We" demanded a shorter process.

    >
    > You should know by now: The ideal FDA needs to approve all effective safe
    > drugs overnight, and will catch all harmful and ineffective drugs
    > immediately.
    >
    > And that little nonsense about a process for distinguishing between the two?
    > The public's not concerned with that.



    IOW, folks want Lord Jesus Christ to take over the FDA :)

    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  11. Philippic

    Philippic Guest

    >
    > There really is no pleasing everybody so it is wiser to simply seek out
    > God's will.


    Well, there's clearly no point looking in that so-called
    'good book' for it:
    http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/howto.html


    > May what I have written enlighten you and others.
    >
    > Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory



    And here too:
    http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/


    > Servant to the humblest person in the universe,


    How nice! And yet somehow we don't see you 'giving
    away all that you have'. Why is that, I wonder...?

    Philippic
     
  12. Ilena Rose

    Ilena Rose Guest

    On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:09:55 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
    [email protected]> wrote:

    >
    >Agreed. There are those who expect perfection from the FDA and all
    >humankind.



    There is a HUMONGOUS continuum between "perfection" and the
    performance of the FDA, Marla.
     
  13. Ilena Rose

    Ilena Rose Guest

  14. James Stein

    James Stein Guest

    "Ilena Rose" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 17:09:55 -0500, "Mark Probert" <Mark
    > [email protected]> wrote:
    >
    >>
    >>Agreed. There are those who expect perfection from the FDA and all
    >>humankind.

    >
    >
    > There is a HUMONGOUS continuum between "perfection" and the
    > performance of the FDA, Marla.



    Actually, what we refer to is the fact that people decry how long it takes
    the FDA to get a drug certified. And when those times are shortened, they
    complain that the screening process is not rigorous enough. Those two
    qualities are mutually exclusive, yet people desire both.

    The FDA is *just* an organization. The fact that an ideal exists does not
    mean we can achieve it.
     
  15. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible teaches
    > how to seek out God's will in what is going on in the world.


    What does it teach for those not so filled?
     
  16. Philippic wrote:
    >
    > >
    > > There really is no pleasing everybody so it is wiser to simply seek out
    > > God's will.

    >
    > Well, there's clearly no point looking in that so-called
    > 'good book' for it:
    > http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/howto.html


    For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible teaches
    how to seek out God's will in what is going on in the world. For those
    who are close-minded, the Holy Bible shows only the flaws and
    imperfections of man. God is not the God of dead but of the living.
    (Luke 20:38).

    > > May what I have written enlighten you and others.
    > >
    > > Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory

    >
    > And here too:
    > http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/


    Not really in comparison to this:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?X1C62661A

    > > Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    >
    > How nice! And yet somehow we don't see you 'giving
    > away all that you have'. Why is that, I wonder...?


    I do not have anything that does not belong to God.

    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  17. In article <[email protected]>,
    "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:

    > [email protected]lid wrote:
    > >
    > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > >
    > > > For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible teaches
    > > > how to seek out God's will in what is going on in the world.

    > >
    > > What does it teach for those not so filled?

    >
    >
    > That man (including the skeptical reader) is flawed, fallible, and
    > judgmental.


    As are his publications. This is news? Further responses limited to
    misc.consumers as I hate crossposting.
     
  18. [email protected]lid wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]phd.com> wrote:
    >
    > > For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible teaches
    > > how to seek out God's will in what is going on in the world.

    >
    > What does it teach for those not so filled?



    That man (including the skeptical reader) is flawed, fallible, and
    judgmental.


    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  19. [email protected]lid wrote:
    >
    > In article <[email protected]>,
    > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
    >
    > > [email protected]lid wrote:
    > > >
    > > > In article <[email protected]>,
    > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email protected]> wrote:
    > > >
    > > > > For those who are filled with the Holy Spirit, the Holy Bible teaches
    > > > > how to seek out God's will in what is going on in the world.
    > > >
    > > > What does it teach for those not so filled?

    > >
    > >
    > > That man (including the skeptical reader) is flawed, fallible, and
    > > judgmental.

    >
    > As are his publications. This is news?


    No. This is my answer to your question.

    > Further responses limited to
    > misc.consumers as I hate crossposting.


    Your choice.


    May God bless those who read the following:

    http://makeashorterlink.com/?I24E5151A


    May what I have written enlighten you and others.

    Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
    (http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


    Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

    Andrew

    --
    Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
    Board-Certified Cardiologist
    http://www.heartmdphd.com/

    **
    Who is the humblest person in the universe?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

    What is all this about?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

    Is this spam?
    http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9
     
  20. GMCarter

    GMCarter Guest

    On Thu, 23 Dec 2004 10:23:27 -0500, Daniel Ganek <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    snip....>
    >I'm neither for nor against the FDA, BUT, wasn't it just a few years
    >ago we were all bitching that the FDA took TOO long to approve drugs?
    >
    >Now, we're all bitching and moaning that they're not during their job and
    >letting drugs on the market too soon!


    Ah--there's a number of issues here.

    Drugs for life-threatening conditions such as AIDS and some cancers
    NEED faster approval to help people obtain access. Such accelerated
    approval is predicated on the companies doing larger Phase IV
    follow-up studies to evaluate toxicities that may not be picked up in
    smaller studies.

    Companies usually renege.

    Meantime, Pharma spends inordinate resources on products for chronic
    but not necessarily imminently life threatening conditions such as
    arthritis pain and cholesterol. These require life long use of drugs
    and are MUCH more profitable. But studies are usually 6 months or a
    year and do not take into account polypharmacy (use of many drugs) and
    long duration. Thus, they'll miss the longer term toxicities.

    Which suits them fine as long as they can assure multi-billion dollar
    per year profits on overcharging drastically for these medications.

    They answer only to the parasites of Wall Street, not to the mission
    of people's health and what will best serve individuals facing chronic
    or acute conditions.

    George M. Carter
     
Loading...