Re: 99 per cent fail label comprehension

From: Zee (zwalanga_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: 14 Jan 2005 08:30:57 -0800

http://tinyurl.com/5nrzx

Steve Marcus wrote:
> "Zee" <zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:1105642256.872608.235350@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Steve Marcus wrote:
> >> "Zee" <zwalanga@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >> news:1105574381.856995.273000@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >> > "For example, in briefing materials released Wednesday, the FDA
> > noted
> >> > that a label comprehension study showed that 99 percent of
patients
> > who
> >> > said they thought they could use Mevacor right away actually had
at
> >> > least one risk factor that meant they shouldn't use the drug.
> >> >
> >> > The medical consumer center's Levin said Mevacor's proposed
switch
> >> > mirrors the gradually evolving perception of statins as "silver
> > bullet"
> >> > preventatives against heart disease for healthy people, rather
than
> >> > simply a cholesterol-lowering therapy for those who already have
> > heart
> >> > disease
> >> >
> >> > If it's cleared for OTC use, Mevacor "will be aggressively
marketed
> > as
> >> > a preventative, but that promotion might take people's minds off
> > other
> >> > things they should be doing to stay healthy," he said, such as
> > eating a
> >> > healthy diet and exercising.
> >> >
> >> > Sidney Wolfe, head of the Health Research Group for the consumer
> > group
> >> > Public Citizen, also said he had reservations about
lipid-lowering
> >> > drugs going OTC.
> >> >
> >> > There's insufficient evidence, he said, that statins actually
> > reduce
> >> > cholesterol levels in healthy people, or in those who have never
> > had a
> >> > heart attack, stroke or angina and who have either one or no
risk
> >> > factors. stroke or angina and who have either one or no risk
> > factors."
> >> > http://tinyurl.com/4q9v3
> >> >
> >>
> >> If the cited article quotes him directly, then it is clear that
> > Sidney Wolfe
> >> has zero credibility. Statins are chemicals, not viruses; they
> > aren't
> >> alive. They don't know whether a person taking a statin drug is
> > "healthy",
> >> or "sick", and the mechanism by which the statin would operate to
> > reduce
> >> total cholesterol would be the same in either. Certainly a person
> > who has a
> >> very low total cholesterol and a healthy ratio of HDL to LDL that
is
> >> achieved through diet/exercise/genetics might not significantly
> > benefit from
> >> a statin drug, but that's not the same as saying that in two
people,
> > each
> >> having 200 TC and a poor HDL/LDL ratio, the statin will work to
> > reduce TC
> >> and improve the HDL/LDL ratio in the one that has coronary artery
> > disease
> >> and two risk factors but not in the other who has no CAD and one
risk
> >
> >> factor.
> >>
> >> The issue of whether the healthy person in the example above
should
> > take a
> >> statin as a prophylactic is a different matter entirely.
> >>
> >> Steve
> >> --
> >> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
> >> because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
> >> should not be construed as either. This posting does not
> >> represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
> >> view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3
> > The fault is probably with the reporter and not Wolfe.
> >
> > Zee
> >
>
> I have a question for you Zee, and the purpose is nothing other than
to
> point you in a direction of "self-improvement."
>
> Why is it that if someone makes a reply to a given post of yours
which tends
> to demonstrate that the info in your post may not, for example, have
been
> entirely accurate, your response is to bury your reply in such a way
as to
> camoflauge that you even replied, or to attack the other poster?
>
> Wouldn't you (that is, your credibility) have been better served by
posting
> your reply "The fault is probably with the reporter and not Wolfe."
so that
> it was easily visible, rather than in such a way that one has to
search
> carefully to even detect that you did reply? Wouldn't you (and your
> credibility) have been better served by agreeing with my post, and
then
> stating that you hope (or even doubt) that Wolfe was not quoted
directly, or
> that the reporter garbled the matter in some other way?
>
> Steve
> --
> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice,
> because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and
> should not be construed as either. This posting does not
> represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal
> view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3

Relevant Pages

  • Re: 99 per cent fail label comprehension
    ... >> The fault is probably with the reporter and not Wolfe. ... your credibility) have been better served by ... > The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.med)
  • Re: Spirit Pond, Maine
    ... You seem to think that peer review means "error free." ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... >> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... >> represent the opinion of my employer, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Question Greenland Greenlanders 1456
    ... >> You are a liar. ... >> allege they mean. ... >> The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ... This posting does not ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Climate Change Not The Cause of Neanderthal Extinction
    ... stories having vague connections to archaeology, so that you can see your ... Just some constructive criticism ... ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)
  • Re: Cave Reveals Southwests Abrupt Climate Swings During Ice Age (geoscience)
    ... upheaval is s spectacular event for spectators like me. ... known to be riddled with norse artifacts. ... The above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, ...
    (sci.archaeology)