Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
I just wanted to thank you Keith for all the urls/information you posted, both in this 'thread' as well as the others. best wishes Shan You're most welcome Shan, thanks for saying so. I thought you might like it. :-) Please feel free to spread it around, if you like. All best Keith ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Keith, Keith Addison wrote: The IRS has mercy? If so it seems to get left out in the telling, the way Americans tend to tell it. That's the joke, yes. The FDA is like the IRS without mercy; like the Spanish Inquisition without the light hearted humor and clever reparteé. [...] For example, NSAIDs, drugs that help prevent heart problems, NSAIDs stands for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. I'm aware that, as well as for the anti-inflammatory effect, they're used to lower fever and for pain relief, but (apart from aspirin) this is the first time I see them described as drugs that help prevent heart problems. My mistake. As implied, I often found dealing with the FDA to be like living in one of the circles of hell. In spite of all of it, however, I think the system is basically sound and that the ideas underlying it are reasonable. Of course we need to test drugs. Of course we need to have solid evidence of safety and efficacy. Science actually works. Science does, yes, within its limitations, when it's allowed to. Too often it depends who's paying the piper. Equating science with the FDA is stretching it more than a little... Having been on the wrong end of the FDA's gun, I still think that the majority of what the Agency does is soundly based. And when I speak of the wrong end of the gun, I mean (for example) that our company suffered from the abuse of science at FDA's hands. They once quoted a peer-reviewed paper at us in the attempt to demonstrate that our device could potentially damage nerves. We happened to know the guy that wrote the paper, and he was kind enough to write them a letter saying This is a misuse of my work. We further demonstrated that the parameter they said was dangerous in our device was 100 to 500 times worse in already-approved devices, or to turn that around, our device was 100 to 500 times safer than approved devices. FDA had to back off. Science won that round, and often does. In other words, I don't necessarily raise a salute when FDA marches past, and in saying the system is basically sound, I am not saying that I agree with everything the Agency does. I most certainly don't. What it does mean, however, is that we need a system that uses good science and valid statistics (perhaps an irreconcilable oxymoron) to demonstrate that the treatments and drugs that are used are safe and effective. The European system, in my view, is far superior, because it is not as much of an adversarial system. In Europe, there are three parties involved: the company, the government, and the Notified Bodies. These last are like consulting organizations, hired by the companies, and they are charged with insuring the law is followed. If the NBs fail to do that, they can lose their certification, which means they lose their place on the gravy train. So the NBs have to find the sharp edge of the blade in balancing between the government and the companies. Of course, there are abuses, mistakes and problems in that system as well. In the US, it's just the companies and the FDA, and there can be a bit of the revolving door. Even so, the situation with the FDA is far superior to what it would be without the FDA. In the end, however, the finest rules and regulations will fail precisely to the degree the people are corrupt, greedy, ignorant, or asleep. d. -- David William House The Complete Biogas Handbook |www.completebiogas.com| Make no search for water. But find thirst, And water from the very ground will burst. (Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77) http://bahai.us/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090505/3aab0ae6/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Hello again David Keith, Keith Addison wrote: The IRS has mercy? If so it seems to get left out in the telling, the way Americans tend to tell it. That's the joke, yes. The FDA is like the IRS without mercy; like the Spanish Inquisition without the light hearted humor and clever reparteé. [...] For example, NSAIDs, drugs that help prevent heart problems, NSAIDs stands for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. I'm aware that, as well as for the anti-inflammatory effect, they're used to lower fever and for pain relief, but (apart from aspirin) this is the first time I see them described as drugs that help prevent heart problems. My mistake. As implied, I often found dealing with the FDA to be like living in one of the circles of hell. In spite of all of it, however, I think the system is basically sound and that the ideas underlying it are reasonable. Of course we need to test drugs. Of course we need to have solid evidence of safety and efficacy. Science actually works. Science does, yes, within its limitations, when it's allowed to. Too often it depends who's paying the piper. Equating science with the FDA is stretching it more than a little... Having been on the wrong end of the FDA's gun, I still think that the majority of what the Agency does is soundly based. And when I speak of the wrong end of the gun, I mean (for example) that our company suffered from the abuse of science at FDA's hands. They once quoted a peer-reviewed paper at us in the attempt to demonstrate that our device could potentially damage nerves. We happened to know the guy that wrote the paper, and he was kind enough to write them a letter saying This is a misuse of my work. We further demonstrated that the parameter they said was dangerous in our device was 100 to 500 times worse in already-approved devices, or to turn that around, our device was 100 to 500 times safer than approved devices. FDA had to back off. Science won that round, and often does. In other words, I don't necessarily raise a salute when FDA marches past, and in saying the system is basically sound, I am not saying that I agree with everything the Agency does. I most certainly don't. What it does mean, however, is that we need a system that uses good science and valid statistics (perhaps an irreconcilable oxymoron) to demonstrate that the treatments and drugs that are used are safe and effective. That's what you don't have, yet you say the system is basically sound. The European system, in my view, is far superior, because it is not as much of an adversarial system. In Europe, there are three parties involved: the company, the government, and the Notified Bodies. These last are like consulting organizations, hired by the companies, and they are charged with insuring the law is followed. If the NBs fail to do that, they can lose their certification, which means they lose their place on the gravy train. So the NBs have to find the sharp edge of the blade in balancing between the government and the companies. Of course, there are abuses, mistakes and problems in that system as well. In the US, it's just the companies and the FDA, and there can be a bit of the revolving door. Even so, the situation with the FDA is far superior to what it would be without the FDA. Well, it's a nice view, but it seems a bit faith-based to me. As I said: On the other hand, it's a little hard these days to find solid evidence that the FDA is more a part of the solution than part of the problem. It's just another piper to be paid for. But close your eyes and chuck a dart - I happened to go to SourceWatch earlier today, this is at the top: Merck's Heart-Stopping PR in Australia: In Australia, the pharmaceutical company Merck is on trial. Australians who took the pain medication Vioxx allege that Merck and its Australian subsidiary, Merck Sharp Dohme, knew Vioxx increased the risk of heart attacks long before it voluntarily withdrew the drug from the market in 2004. Merck has paid $4.85 billion to U.S. Vioxx patients, but never admitted liability. ... http://www.sourcewatch.org/ Nothing special about today, and it's not only SourceWatch, far from it. In the end, however, the finest rules and regulations will fail precisely to the degree the people are corrupt, greedy, ignorant, or asleep. The people? Are you sure that's where the problem arises? Have you read these? Mammoth corporations http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg30628.html Re: Will Globalization Make You Happy? http://lists.ifas.ufl.edu/cgi-bin/wa.exe?A2=ind0010L=sanet-mgT=0P=10975 Feel No Remorse -- The Corporate Creed http://journeytoforever.org/fyi_previous5.html#creed And if they're asleep, how exactly did they get that way? Anyway, I won't be around much for the next few days so I won't be able to discuss it further. No need to though, the list archives has a large amount of good material on such matters. Re this: To go back to the
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
I hope nobody minds if I put my 2 cents in? The following were hastily thrown together and from only one website, but I think that it still illustrates how reliable, competent, and also unbiased that the FDA is In my opinion politics and healing should never be mixed. I do not believe that it would be possible to 'fix' the FDA, or Health Canada either for that matter. They both need to be thrown away and replaced with something that has healing and the best interests of all the people in mind. I read somewhere that way back when, healers were mostly monks for they had no other agendas nor concerns other then the health and healing of people..Sounds good to me; would certainly make me respect some established religions more as well. Actually I am far from unbiased as far as the present 'conventional' medical system is concerned and truely enjoyed reading these..I could very happily spent hours and hours gathering proof of what the drug companies as well as 'supporting' agencies do. best wishes Shan A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies _http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2009/03/13/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricate d-studies.aspx_ (http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2009/03/13/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies.aspx) Scott S. Reuben, a prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist, allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx and Celebrex. Baystate Medical Center said that Reuben had faked data used in the studies, which were published in several anesthesiology journals between 1996 and 2008. The hospital has asked the medical journals to retract the studies. The studies reported favorable results from the use of painkillers Bextra and Vioxx -- both since withdrawn -- as well as Celebrex and Lyrica. Dr. Reuben's research work also claimed positive findings for the antidepressant Effexor XR as a pain killer. The retractions, first reported in Anesthesiology News, have caused anesthesiologists to reconsider the use of certain practices adopted as a result of Dr. Reuben's research. His work was considered important in encouraging doctors to combine the use of painkillers like Celebrex and Lyrica for patients undergoing common procedures such as knee and hip replacements. Sources: _Wall Street Journal March 11, 2009_ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html) --- Warning! Drug Company Buries Unfavorable Antidepressant Drug Studies _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/21/seroquel-studies-bu ried-by-astrazeneca.aspx_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/21/seroquel-studies-buried-by-astrazeneca.aspx) Drugmaker AstraZeneca “buried” unfavorable studies on its antipsychotic drug Seroquel, according to an internal e-mail. The e-mail was made public due to litigation over the medicine. The drugmaker did not publicize results of at least three clinical trials of Seroquel and engaged in “cherry picking” of data from one of those studies for use in a presentation, an AstraZeneca official said in the December 1999 e-mail. The company faces about 9,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to properly warn users that Seroquel can cause diabetes and other health problems. Seroquel, which generated sales of $4.45 billion in 2008, is the company’s second-biggest seller after the ulcer treatment Nexium. AstraZeneca has denied wrongdoing, and is vowing to fight the lawsuits in court. Sources _Bloomberg.com February 27, 2009_ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087sid=aS_.NqzMArG8refer=home) _Washington Post March 18, 2009_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703786.html?wprss=rss_health) Dr. Mercola's Comments: [ Continued..] (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) --- Drug Firms Ignore Federal Law, Not Reporting Studies _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/drug-studies.aspx_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/drug-studies.aspx) - Soy Maker Omits Studies That Soy May Cause Cancer _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/soy-cancer-part-two.aspx_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/soy-cancer-part-two.aspx) The Weston A. Price Foundation, a non-profit nutrition
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Hello Shan Thankyou. I hope nobody minds if I put my 2 cents in? You're most welcome. (You started the thread, after all.) The following were hastily thrown together and from only one website, but I think that it still illustrates how reliable, competent, and also unbiased that the FDA is In my opinion politics and healing should never be mixed. I do not believe that it would be possible to 'fix' the FDA, or Health Canada either for that matter. They both need to be thrown away and replaced with something that has healing and the best interests of all the people in mind. I have to agree. I don't think there's any hope for them (and others like them). Best Keith I read somewhere that way back when, healers were mostly monks for they had no other agendas nor concerns other then the health and healing of people..Sounds good to me; would certainly make me respect some established religions more as well. Actually I am far from unbiased as far as the present 'conventional' medical system is concerned and truely enjoyed reading these..I could very happily spent hours and hours gathering proof of what the drug companies as well as 'supporting' agencies do. best wishes Shan A New Low in Drug Research: 21 Fabricated Studies _http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2009/03/13/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricate d-studies.aspx_ (http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2009/03/13/a-new-low-in-drug-research-21-fabricated-studies.aspx) Scott S. Reuben, a prominent Massachusetts anesthesiologist, allegedly fabricated 21 medical studies that claimed to show benefits from painkillers like Vioxx and Celebrex. Baystate Medical Center said that Reuben had faked data used in the studies, which were published in several anesthesiology journals between 1996 and 2008. The hospital has asked the medical journals to retract the studies. The studies reported favorable results from the use of painkillers Bextra and Vioxx -- both since withdrawn -- as well as Celebrex and Lyrica. Dr. Reuben's research work also claimed positive findings for the antidepressant Effexor XR as a pain killer. The retractions, first reported in Anesthesiology News, have caused anesthesiologists to reconsider the use of certain practices adopted as a result of Dr. Reuben's research. His work was considered important in encouraging doctors to combine the use of painkillers like Celebrex and Lyrica for patients undergoing common procedures such as knee and hip replacements. Sources: _Wall Street Journal March 11, 2009_ (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB123672510903888207.html) --- Warning! Drug Company Buries Unfavorable Antidepressant Drug Studies _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/21/seroquel-studies-bu ried-by-astrazeneca.aspx_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/03/21/seroquel-studies-buried-by-astrazeneca.aspx) Drugmaker AstraZeneca buried unfavorable studies on its antipsychotic drug Seroquel, according to an internal e-mail. The e-mail was made public due to litigation over the medicine. The drugmaker did not publicize results of at least three clinical trials of Seroquel and engaged in cherry picking of data from one of those studies for use in a presentation, an AstraZeneca official said in the December 1999 e-mail. The company faces about 9,000 lawsuits claiming it failed to properly warn users that Seroquel can cause diabetes and other health problems. Seroquel, which generated sales of $4.45 billion in 2008, is the company's second-biggest seller after the ulcer treatment Nexium. AstraZeneca has denied wrongdoing, and is vowing to fight the lawsuits in court. Sources _Bloomberg.com February 27, 2009_ (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087sid=aS_.NqzMArG8refer=home) _Washington Post March 18, 2009_ (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/17/AR2009031703786.html?wprss=rss_health) Dr. Mercola's Comments: [ Continued..] (http://www.papercut.biz/emailStripper.htm) --- Drug Firms Ignore Federal Law, Not Reporting Studies _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/drug-studies.aspx_ (http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/drug-studies.aspx) - Soy Maker Omits Studies That Soy May Cause Cancer _http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2004/07/21/soy-cancer-part-two.aspx_
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
I just wanted to thank you Keith for all the urls/information you posted, both in this 'thread' as well as the others. best wishes Shan -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090506/ce815d69/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Not bad coverage. Pity about the Godwin's Law infringements with storm troopers etc, it only weakens the force of the argument. Re this: For example, only the makers of FDA approved drugs can use the word cure, or even imply any health benefits without the FDA considering the product a drug. The catch is that in order to be FDA approved, no matter how many PubMed cited studies or other studies have been performed, and no matter how much of a history of hundreds or thousands of years and users, the FDA only approves drugs that go through its specific approval process --- one that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Could that be right? It really costs hundreds of billions of dollars to get a drug approved? Does it cost even hundreds of millions? Best Keith Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues Tuesday, February 26, 2008 by: Tony Isaacs, citizen journalist _http://www.naturalnews.com/022728.html_ (http://www.naturalnews.com/022728.html) (NaturalNews) The recent widespread mainstream media coverage of the **blue man** Paul Karason and his rare skin condition known as Argyria is the latest in a series of largely misleading and sensationalized scare stories about the dangers of colloidal silver turning a person`s skin blue. Although this latest story did not appear to originate from mainstream medicine or the FDA, there is little doubt that they have welcomed it with open arms and have been quick to trot out **medical experts** and past FDA warnings to help **sing the blues** about colloidal silver. The truth is that mainstream medicine has a very good reason to cry long and loud about colloidal silver, because it does represent a very real danger - a danger to the huge profits of the pharmaceutical industry*s patented antibiotics. The truth is that silver has been used effectively by mankind to fight germs and ailments for thousands of years, and the instances of modern use of colloidal silver turning people*s skin blue are so rare as to be almost non-existent - and unlike thousands of prescribed and approved over-the-counter mainstream medications including the common aspirin, silver has never killed anyone. As a matter of fact, almost all of the relative handful of reported instances have involved one or more of the following: older silver products that contained as much as 10% or more silver (compared to mere parts per million in modern colloidal silver), silver nitrate, home made colloidal silver that was contaminated with salt, and silver that has been consumed continuously in very large quantities over a very long period of time. In the case of Karason, he made his own ionic silver at home for almost two decades and for many years consumed a quart or more per day. I daresay that any prescribed or over-the-counter medication whose recommended dosage was a couple of teaspoons a day would do far worse than turn a person blue if they drank a quart or more of it a year! For the sake of comparison, drinking a quart or more per day of colloidal silver would be like a person taking several bottles of aspirin a day, a practice that would be lethal in short order. Karason actually appears to enjoy his notoriety as the Papa Smurf blue man, and even though he sings the praises of how colloidal silver saved his life and the many ailments he believes it cured, the focus of attention is on his blue skin - a condition that is actually reversible with proper diet and herbal cleanses despite mainstream claims to the contrary. What is also true about colloidal silver is that it is far safer, more effective and less expensive than the marginally effective and side effect laden mainstream antibiotics - and has mainstream and university studies proving it dating back to the early 1900*s. The best and strongest of the FDA approved antibiotics are effective for a handful of bacteria at best, whereas colloidal silver is supremely effective against just about every kind of single celled pathogen, including bacteria, fungal growths and viruses (which antibiotics are often wrongly prescribed for, despite the fact that antibiotics have no effect on viruses). If the public were told the truth, a rarity when it comes to mainstream drugs versus natural competition, colloidal silver would represent a huge threat to literally billions of dollars of profits and so it is no wonder that mainstream medicine and their allies in the mainstream media are once again loudly singing the blues - just as they have repeatedly done in the past with misleading stories and studies about a great many popular natural plants, supplements, vitamins and minerals that represent threats to mainstream drug profits because they are safer, more effective and less expensive alternatives to the unnatural, side effect laden, hugely expensive and marginally effective synthetics created in the labs of the powerful world pharmaceutical empire. While there
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Keith, Keith Addison wrote: For example, only the makers of FDA approved drugs can use the word cure... [and] the FDA only approves drugs that go through its specific approval process --- one that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Could that be right? It really costs hundreds of billions of dollars to get a drug approved? Does it cost even hundreds of millions? As someone who once ran a medical device company, and spent many a long hour dealing with FDA, I can affirm that the FDA is like the IRS, except they have no mercy, and the audits go on for years unending. It does not cost hundreds of billions, however. Such price tags are reserved for the morass of war. Not even the conquest of AIDS in Africa would be that expensive. That said, drug approval is often more expensive than device approval. Devices can often be approved after fairly small trials consisting of 100-200 people. When trying to gain approval for a drug, by contrast (after demonstrating sufficient safety in smaller trials), sometimes one must try to tease out fairly subtle health improvements or rare complications, and either requires many, many warm bodies. For example, NSAIDs, drugs that help prevent heart problems, must be given to enough people over a long enough time to demonstrate that there is sufficient positive reason to use them and a lack of a negative reason to avoid them. A 25% improvement in a problem or reduction in a complication that may afflict only a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of a certain population may require thousands of participants in a long-term drug trial before statistical certitude is sufficient. As implied, I often found dealing with the FDA to be like living in one of the circles of hell. In spite of all of it, however, I think the system is basically sound and that the ideas underlying it are reasonable. Of course we need to test drugs. Of course we need to have solid evidence of safety and efficacy. Science actually works. d. -- David William House The Complete Biogas Handbook |www.completebiogas.com| Make no search for water. But find thirst, And water from the very ground will burst. (Rumi, a Persian mystic poet, quoted in /Delight of Hearts/, p. 77) http://bahai.us/ -- next part -- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: /pipermail/attachments/20090505/3ad22bc3/attachment.html ___ Biofuel mailing list Biofuel@sustainablelists.org http://sustainablelists.org/mailman/listinfo/sustainablelorgbiofuel Biofuel at Journey to Forever: http://journeytoforever.org/biofuel.html Search the combined Biofuel and Biofuels-biz list archives (70,000 messages): http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/
Re: [Biofuel] Colloidal Silver Has Mainstream Medicine Singing the Blues
Hello David Keith, Keith Addison wrote: For example, only the makers of FDA approved drugs can use the word cure... [and] the FDA only approves drugs that go through its specific approval process --- one that costs hundreds of billions of dollars. Could that be right? It really costs hundreds of billions of dollars to get a drug approved? Does it cost even hundreds of millions? As someone who once ran a medical device company, and spent many a long hour dealing with FDA, I can affirm that the FDA is like the IRS, except they have no mercy, The IRS has mercy? If so it seems to get left out in the telling, the way Americans tend to tell it. and the audits go on for years unending. It does not cost hundreds of billions, however. Such price tags are reserved for the morass of war. And handouts for Wall Street. Not even the conquest of AIDS in Africa would be that expensive. That said, drug approval is often more expensive than device approval. Devices can often be approved after fairly small trials consisting of 100-200 people. When trying to gain approval for a drug, by contrast (after demonstrating sufficient safety in smaller trials), sometimes one must try to tease out fairly subtle health improvements or rare complications, and either requires many, many warm bodies. For example, NSAIDs, drugs that help prevent heart problems, NSAIDs stands for Non-Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs. I'm aware that, as well as for the anti-inflammatory effect, they're used to lower fever and for pain relief, but (apart from aspirin) this is the first time I see them described as drugs that help prevent heart problems. A quick check finds that wikipedia says just the opposite: A recent meta-analysis of all trials comparing NSAIDs found an 80% increase in the risk of myocardial infarction with both newer COX-2 antagonists and high dose traditional anti-inflammatories compared with placebo. (Kearney et al., BMJ 2006;332:1302-1308) NSAIDs aside from (low-dose) aspirin are associated with a doubled risk of symptomatic heart failure in patients without a history of cardiac disease. In patients with such a history, however, use of NSAIDs (aside from low-dose aspirin) was associated with more than 10-fold increase in heart failure.[8] If this link is found to be causal, NSAIDs are estimated to be responsible for up to 20 percent of hospital admissions for congestive heart failure.[8] This is the footnote reference: http://archinte.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/160/6/777 Consumption of NSAIDs and the Development of Congestive Heart Failure in Elderly Patients An Underrecognized Public Health Problem John Page, MBBS(Hons); David Henry, MBChB Arch Intern Med. 2000;160:777-784. That's what I'd thought. (No I don't trust or rely on Wikipedia, though it's improving, but this checks out.) must be given to enough people over a long enough time to demonstrate that there is sufficient positive reason to use them and a lack of a negative reason to avoid them. A 25% improvement in a problem or reduction in a complication that may afflict only a few tenths or hundredths of a percent of a certain population may require thousands of participants in a long-term drug trial before statistical certitude is sufficient. As implied, I often found dealing with the FDA to be like living in one of the circles of hell. In spite of all of it, however, I think the system is basically sound and that the ideas underlying it are reasonable. Of course we need to test drugs. Of course we need to have solid evidence of safety and efficacy. Science actually works. Science does, yes, within its limitations, when it's allowed to. Too often it depends who's paying the piper. Equating science with the FDA is stretching it more than a little, as the colloidal silver article states truly enough, despite small confusions over costs, and there's certainly a great deal of unshakeable substantiation for that view, much of it in the list archives. This for instance, have a read (the whole series is in the archives): How a New Policy Led to Seven Deadly Drugs Los Angeles Times By DAVID WILLMAN, Times Staff Writer Wednesday, December 20, 2000 Medicine: Once a wary watchdog, the Food and Drug Administration set out to become a partner of the pharmaceutical industry. Today, the public has more remedies, but some are proving lethal. http://www.mail-archive.com/biofuel@sustainablelists.org/msg54672.html It seems to be more the rule than the exception. On the other hand, it's a little hard these days to find solid evidence that the FDA is more a part of the solution than part of the problem. It's just another piper to be paid for. I don't understand how you can state that the system is basically sound, it's obvious that it's not sound. Not any part of it is sound (and not just in the US, though especially there). The real question is whether or not it's beyond repair. To go back to the question: Could
