Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: Don Kirkman <donkirk@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 12:49:07 -0700
It seems to me I heard somewhere that eml wrote in article
<1129433404.931980.12760@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:
>Don Kirkman wrote:
>> > BTW, "unmasked" does NOT mean "caused by." It means a pre-existing
>> condition was brought to light by or during a subsequent treatment or
>> procedure.
>BTW, I know what "unmasked" means--does not exonerate the treatment
>that triggered the disease. I would prefer to know that a drug i am
>taking can "unmask" a disease state.
One could even argue that it's preferable to have an existing but
undetected disease process unmasked so treatment can be started. I
guess that's because I tend to prefer the known to the unknown risk. One
might consider that an advantage of statins, if in fact they do unmask
some diseases. :-)
--
Don Kirkman
.
- Follow-Ups:
- References:
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: James216440
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: MEM, MD
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: Don Kirkman
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: eml
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: Don Kirkman
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- From: eml
- Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- Prev by Date: Re: Lawsuit questions need for Lipitor: The ASCOT trial's 2000 women
- Next by Date: Re: Lawsuit questions need for Lipitor: The ASCOT trial's 2000 women
- Previous by thread: Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- Next by thread: Re: Cholesterol Levels Are Falling, But Red Flags Are Rising
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|