Science and Technology news... :: View topic

server · Guest

message unavailable

Herman Rubin · Guest

In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
(null) <jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net> wrote:
[quote]life-blood, delivering revenues of $US3 billion ($4.5 billion) a year.
For the women taking HRT, long-term use has delivered increased risks
of breast cancer, blood clots, heart attacks and strokes. And
according to new results released this morning, HRT also damages the
brain, doubling a woman>s chances of developing dementia.

Herman said it wasn>t so bad: it did a lot of good. Come on
Herman.
[/quote]
I never said it did not have any bad effects. One needs to
match the bad and the good.

[quote]In July last year the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) reported the results of a trial involving 16,000 healthy women
aged 50 and over. Almost entirely funded by the US Government, the
study was scheduled to run for eight years but was stopped after five
because it was found HRT was causing an increase in heart attacks,
strokes and breast cancer.

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.
[/quote]
HRT definitely helps with many female problems; I will have
to let women clarify this. It also helps raise bone
density, and raise it substantially; low bone density is
well-known to increase a fair number of risks. These were
seen immediately.

Long-term problems can only be found by long-term tests.
With enough cases, statistical significance is easy to
get; this does not say how important the effect is. If
we have 10 in the experimental group and 1 in the control
group, of equal size, getting a bad result, the usual
significance level does not change much if there are
100 or 1000 or 10000 or more in each group.

[quote]Now comes this morning>s revelations. A Wyeth-funded study published
in today>s JAMA finds that taking HRT doubles an older woman>s risk of
dementia, including the well-known form, Alzheimer>s disease.

But as long as their bones are stronger, it ok, right Herman?
[/quote]

[quote]Again, in absolute terms the chances of developing dementia were not
high taking HRT for four years doubled a women>s chances, from about 1
per cent to 2 per cent. But the researchers pointed out that the
dementia problem began to appear in the first year of the study,
concluding that "the risks outweigh the benefits".
[/quote]

[quote]Herman will say 1% ain>t much.
[/quote]

[quote]accumulating evidence that the drugs were causing heart disease.
[/quote]

[quote]As previously reported in The Australian Financial Review, it is not
surprising that the booklet was unbalanced and misleading: early
drafts came from Wyeth and its PR firm, Hill and Knowlton.
[/quote]

[quote]That is the medical/industrial complex. Be careful: Oreck is
going to say, "You hate doctors. Otherwise you would not post
this article. You>d ignore it."
[/quote]

[quote]The belief that HRT held great benefits wasn>t fabricated, it was
based on evidence from "observational" studies that found women taking
HRT were healthier. But as any medical scientist knows, this
lesser-quality evidence is often weak, and in this case it was grossly
misleading: the women in those "observational" studies who took HRT
were healthier anyway, it wasn>t the HRT that made them healthier.

Any researcher can talk about self-selection as the most
powerful of all obsevations. And there is a terrific and
on-going class bias in American medicine, where what you get is
what you can afford. If you can afford more, you get more.
But more is more harmful than doing nothing. One more example of
overdiagnosis, overtreatment and over profits.
[/quote]

[quote]Top-quality randomised controlled trials testing the drug against a
placebo or other alternative are a much better way of getting to the
truth about risks and benefits, as has finally happened with HRT.

Treatments come in before evaluation. Prostate cancer is next
up for debunking, but the emotions are really bad on this one
too.
[/quote]

[quote]--
George Conklin, Durham, NC: Medicare For All Ages
If HMOs ran the post office, the AMA (American Mail Association)
would declare that getting mail was a privilege, not a right
and 43 million Americans would get no mail delivery.
[/quote]

--
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, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Orac · Guest

In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net ((null)) wrote:

[quote]In July last year the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) reported the results of a trial involving 16,000 healthy women
aged 50 and over. Almost entirely funded by the US Government, the
study was scheduled to run for eight years but was stopped after five
because it was found HRT was causing an increase in heart attacks,
strokes and breast cancer.

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.
[/quote]
Please don>t misrepresent about what I said, George. I never said
anything of the sort, and you know it. If you>re going to try to hang
me, at least do it using something I actually said, rather than
something I never did.

[quote]Now comes this morning>s revelations. A Wyeth-funded study published
in today>s JAMA finds that taking HRT doubles an older woman>s risk of
dementia, including the well-known form, Alzheimer>s disease.

But as long as their bones are stronger, it ok, right Herman?

Again, in absolute terms the chances of developing dementia were not
high taking HRT for four years doubled a women>s chances, from about 1
per cent to 2 per cent. But the researchers pointed out that the
dementia problem began to appear in the first year of the study,
concluding that "the risks outweigh the benefits".

Herman will say 1% ain>t much.
[/quote]
It all depends upon what the price is, George. It may or may not be,
depending upon the benefits of the treatment.

[quote]
accumulating evidence that the drugs were causing heart disease.

As previously reported in The Australian Financial Review, it is not
surprising that the booklet was unbalanced and misleading: early
drafts came from Wyeth and its PR firm, Hill and Knowlton.

That is the medical/industrial complex. Be careful: Oreck is
going to say, "You hate doctors. Otherwise you would not post
this article. You>d ignore it."
[/quote]
LOL! Yes, but in Ilena>s case I>d be correct. ;-)

[quote]The belief that HRT held great benefits wasn>t fabricated, it was
based on evidence from "observational" studies that found women taking
HRT were healthier. But as any medical scientist knows, this
lesser-quality evidence is often weak, and in this case it was grossly
misleading: the women in those "observational" studies who took HRT
were healthier anyway, it wasn>t the HRT that made them healthier.

Any researcher can talk about self-selection as the most
powerful of all obsevations.
[/quote]
As can anyone like you, who still haven>t cited exactly which HRT
studies suffered from self-selection, so that I can look them up and
determine for myself if you>re right or not.

[quote]And there is a terrific and
on-going class bias in American medicine, where what you get is
what you can afford. If you can afford more, you get more.
But more is more harmful than doing nothing.
[/quote]
Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn>t. It depends upon the specific
condition and situation.

[quote]One more example of
overdiagnosis, overtreatment and over profits.
[/quote]
Whatever.

[quote]Top-quality randomised controlled trials testing the drug against a
placebo or other alternative are a much better way of getting to the
truth about risks and benefits, as has finally happened with HRT.

Treatments come in before evaluation. Prostate cancer is next
up for debunking, but the emotions are really bad on this one
too.
[/quote]
Bring it on, George. It ought to be entertaining.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Guest

--
George Conklin
Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-8DF375.21251308072003@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
[quote]In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net ((null)) wrote:

In July last year the Journal of the American Medical Association
(JAMA) reported the results of a trial involving 16,000 healthy women
aged 50 and over. Almost entirely funded by the US Government, the
study was scheduled to run for eight years but was stopped after five
because it was found HRT was causing an increase in heart attacks,
strokes and breast cancer.

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.

Please don>t misrepresent about what I said, George. I never said
anything of the sort, and you know it. If you>re going to try to hang
me, at least do it using something I actually said, rather than
something I never did.

You always push the benefits, and you know you do. And if a physician[/quote]
does it, you defend it, except for Jesica, where the surgeon was not really
the person at fault. That was another way to excuse the result.

[quote]
Now comes this morning>s revelations. A Wyeth-funded study published
in today>s JAMA finds that taking HRT doubles an older woman>s risk of
dementia, including the well-known form, Alzheimer>s disease.

But as long as their bones are stronger, it ok, right Herman?

Again, in absolute terms the chances of developing dementia were not
high taking HRT for four years doubled a women>s chances, from about 1
per cent to 2 per cent. But the researchers pointed out that the
dementia problem began to appear in the first year of the study,
concluding that "the risks outweigh the benefits".

Herman will say 1% ain>t much.

It all depends upon what the price is, George. It may or may not be,
depending upon the benefits of the treatment.
[/quote]
You need to take this up within the industry. If you think the risks
do not outweigh the benefits, you need to prove it now that the business
model has gone the other way.

[quote]

accumulating evidence that the drugs were causing heart disease.

As previously reported in The Australian Financial Review, it is not
surprising that the booklet was unbalanced and misleading: early
drafts came from Wyeth and its PR firm, Hill and Knowlton.

That is the medical/industrial complex. Be careful: Oreck is
going to say, "You hate doctors. Otherwise you would not post
this article. You>d ignore it."

LOL! Yes, but in Ilena>s case I>d be correct. ;-)

The belief that HRT held great benefits wasn>t fabricated, it was
based on evidence from "observational" studies that found women taking
HRT were healthier. But as any medical scientist knows, this
lesser-quality evidence is often weak, and in this case it was grossly
misleading: the women in those "observational" studies who took HRT
were healthier anyway, it wasn>t the HRT that made them healthier.

Any researcher can talk about self-selection as the most
powerful of all obsevations.

As can anyone like you, who still haven>t cited exactly which HRT
studies suffered from self-selection, so that I can look them up and
determine for myself if you>re right or not.
[/quote]
Observational studies are all bad news and widely biased by
self-selection. That is what the clinical trial proved from the start.
Epidemiology is different, since you compare regions where medical practice
is different
[quote]
And there is a terrific and
on-going class bias in American medicine, where what you get is
what you can afford. If you can afford more, you get more.
But more is more harmful than doing nothing.

Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn>t. It depends upon the specific
condition and situation
[/quote]
Not a very useful comment. What we end up with is that you get all the
medical care you can afford, even if you would be better off with less
overdiagnosis.

Orac · Guest

In article <NYSOa.36077$C83.2997000@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
<georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]George Conklin
Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-8DF375.21251308072003@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net ((null)) wrote:

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.

Please don>t misrepresent about what I said, George. I never said
anything of the sort, and you know it. If you>re going to try to hang
me, at least do it using something I actually said, rather than
something I never did.

You always push the benefits, and you know you do.
[/quote]
Wrong, George.

[quote]And if a physician
does it, you defend it, except for Jesica, where the surgeon was not really
the person at fault.
[/quote]
The reason I came down hard on that transplant surgeon is that he DID
share in the responsibility to some degree. As a surgeon, I know the
responsibility involved with performing risky procedures on patients who
might die from them in a way you can>t understand. The surgeon who did
Jesica>s operation would probably also tell you the same thing.
Certainly he never copped out by trying to absolve himself of his
responsibility through shifting blame completely over to the "system"
and not taking any of the blame himself. Because by all accounts he>s a
good surgeon and man, I>m sure it still tortures him to think about what
happened a few months ago.

[quote]That was another way to excuse the result.
[/quote]
Actually, blaming the "system" and not holding the individuals who hold
leadership positions and key functions in the "system" responsible for
the system>s performance in a concrete way and not making them
responsible for fixing the system when it fails are an even better ways
to excuse the result: "Hey, it>s not our fault. It>s the system>s fault."

[quote]Now comes this morning>s revelations. A Wyeth-funded study published
in today>s JAMA finds that taking HRT doubles an older woman>s risk of
dementia, including the well-known form, Alzheimer>s disease.

But as long as their bones are stronger, it ok, right Herman?

Again, in absolute terms the chances of developing dementia were not
high taking HRT for four years doubled a women>s chances, from about 1
per cent to 2 per cent. But the researchers pointed out that the
dementia problem began to appear in the first year of the study,
concluding that "the risks outweigh the benefits".

Herman will say 1% ain>t much.

It all depends upon what the price is, George. It may or may not be,
depending upon the benefits of the treatment.

You need to take this up within the industry. If you think the risks
do not outweigh the benefits, you need to prove it now that the business
model has gone the other way.
[/quote]
That>s what these clinical studies are for, George.

[Snip]

[quote]And there is a terrific and
on-going class bias in American medicine, where what you get is
what you can afford. If you can afford more, you get more.
But more is more harmful than doing nothing.

Sometimes it is; sometimes it isn>t. It depends upon the specific
condition and situation

Not a very useful comment. What we end up with is that you get all the
medical care you can afford, even if you would be better off with less
overdiagnosis.
[/quote]
Just because you see everything in black and white and can>t understand
or won>t admit to the nuances of this argument doesn>t mean my comment
isn>t "useful." For some conditions in the past (for instance,
tonsillectomy for tonsillitis), there is no doubt that there was
widespread overtreatment, and the pendulum has swung back to the point
where tonsillectomy is not nearly as commonly performed. For other
conditions (such as diabetes, coronary artery diseases, etc.) it can be
argued that there is underdiagnosis and undertreatment.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Guest

--
George Conklin
Orac <orac@wlsfanmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-D4740B.10480109072003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
[quote]In article <NYSOa.36077$C83.2997000@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

George Conklin
Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-8DF375.21251308072003@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net ((null)) wrote:

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.

Please don>t misrepresent about what I said, George. I never said
anything of the sort, and you know it. If you>re going to try to hang
me, at least do it using something I actually said, rather than
something I never did.

You always push the benefits, and you know you do.

Wrong, George.

And if a physician
does it, you defend it, except for Jesica, where the surgeon was not
really
the person at fault.

The reason I came down hard on that transplant surgeon is that he DID
share in the responsibility to some degree. As a surgeon, I know the
responsibility involved with performing risky procedures on patients who
might die from them in a way you can>t understand. The surgeon who did
Jesica>s operation would probably also tell you the same thing.
Certainly he never copped out by trying to absolve himself of his
responsibility through shifting blame completely over to the "system"
and not taking any of the blame himself. Because by all accounts he>s a
good surgeon and man, I>m sure it still tortures him to think about what
happened a few months ago.

That was another way to excuse the result.

Actually, blaming the "system" and not holding the individuals who hold
leadership positions and key functions in the "system" responsible for
the system>s performance in a concrete way and not making them
responsible for fixing the system when it fails are an even better ways
to excuse the result: "Hey, it>s not our fault. It>s the system>s fault."

Hanging all system errors on individuals simply means that errors are[/quote]
not prevented the next time. In fact, newspapers have discussed since all
the system changes made to make sure that such an error does not happen
again. Your approach is like blaming death in cars on drivers. Ok, but
death rates on the highway went down by half not because of better people,
but because cars and roads got safer. Henry Ford had an embroidery on the
wall which said, "Screw Airbags." Now we all have them.

Ilena · Guest

[quote]That is the medical/industrial complex. Be careful: Oreck is
going to say, "You hate doctors. Otherwise you would not post
this article. You>d ignore it."
[/quote]

David Gorski

[quote]LOL! Yes, but in Ilena>s case I>d be correct. ;-)

[/quote]

LOL ... no you wouldn>t.

Again you lie to the public claiming to speak for me.

I do not hate doctors in general ... Quacks like Stevie "I am the
Media" Barrett and Terry the Terror Polevoy and their sychophants like
you, J P Utz, and their team of other failures like ex lawyer Probert
.... indeed.

Herman Rubin · Guest

In article <VSSOa.36068$C83.2996555@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
<georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]--
George Conklin
Herman Rubin <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:befnpq$36t4@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
(null) <jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net> wrote:
[/quote]
...................

[quote]Putting healthy people on a drug treatment plan in order to improve their
health and then finding it hurts their health is the issue Herman. You
always assume someone is sick. It is like calling life pre-death.
[/quote]
What is "healthy"? Is a woman with morning sickness, or
PMS, or the discomforts of menopause, healthy? Is someone
with thinning bones, which cause risks of fractures and
worse, healthy?

Should we vaccinate people? At the time we vaccinate them,
they are healthy, or at least not suffering from the disease
against which they are being vaccinated. Some people are
clearly hurt from the vaccinations, and for others, there is
no clear indication for the side effects, but it cannot be
ruled out.

--
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, Deptartment of Statistics, Purdue University
hrubin@stat.purdue.edu Phone: (765)494-6054 FAX: (765)494-0558

Orac · Guest

In article <JZZOa.36774$C83.3041068@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
<georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

[quote]--
George Conklin
Orac <orac@wlsfanmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-D4740B.10480109072003@host9.newsfeeds.com...
In article <NYSOa.36077$C83.2997000@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

George Conklin
Orac <orac@wabcmail.com> wrote in message
news:orac-8DF375.21251308072003@rcache2.srv.hcvlny.cv.net...
In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net ((null)) wrote:

Ask Oreck, Herman and our Florida ob about how minor these
problems were compared to the benefits and profits.

Please don>t misrepresent about what I said, George. I never said
anything of the sort, and you know it. If you>re going to try to hang
me, at least do it using something I actually said, rather than
something I never did.

You always push the benefits, and you know you do.

Wrong, George.

And if a physician
does it, you defend it, except for Jesica, where the surgeon was not
really
the person at fault.

The reason I came down hard on that transplant surgeon is that he DID
share in the responsibility to some degree. As a surgeon, I know the
responsibility involved with performing risky procedures on patients who
might die from them in a way you can>t understand. The surgeon who did
Jesica>s operation would probably also tell you the same thing.
Certainly he never copped out by trying to absolve himself of his
responsibility through shifting blame completely over to the "system"
and not taking any of the blame himself. Because by all accounts he>s a
good surgeon and man, I>m sure it still tortures him to think about what
happened a few months ago.

That was another way to excuse the result.

Actually, blaming the "system" and not holding the individuals who hold
leadership positions and key functions in the "system" responsible for
the system>s performance in a concrete way and not making them
responsible for fixing the system when it fails are an even better ways
to excuse the result: "Hey, it>s not our fault. It>s the system>s fault."

Hanging all system errors on individuals simply means that errors are
not prevented the next time.
[/quote]
You are misinterpreting. WHO is responsible for fixing system errors? It
is the PEOPLE in charge of the system. Human systems like the transplant
system don>t create or fix themselves. They are created and maintained
by people. The people responsible for running a system must be held
accountable for its errors. If they show that they are unable or
unwilling to fix flaws or errors in the system, then they must be
replaced by people who will. It>s called accountability, and it>s a VERY
basic concept in organizational leadership.

[quote]In fact, newspapers have discussed since all
the system changes made to make sure that such an error does not happen
again.
[/quote]
That>s all well and good.

[quote]Your approach is like blaming death in cars on drivers.
[/quote]
Bad analogy. In fact, it>s a straw man (which you gleefully tear down
below). My approach is more like blaming deaths in cars on the people
who design unsafe cars and unsafe freeways and thus properly holding
them accountable for making cars and freeways more safe.

[quote]Ok, but
death rates on the highway went down by half not because of better people,
but because cars and roads got safer. Henry Ford had an embroidery on the
wall which said, "Screw Airbags." Now we all have them.
[/quote]
Again, straw man.
--
Orac |"A statement of fact cannot be insolent."
|
|"If you cannot listen to the answers, why do you
| inconvenience me with questions?"

Kurt Ullman · Guest

In article <Xns93B3C595D8D39bytemybnanacom@142.77.1.194>, Byte Me
<bytemyb@nana.com> wrote:
[quote]kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote in news:Ul1Pa.37231$C83.3064189
@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

Can>t get it to fit around his head. Craniorectal inversion.

Look who>s talking. Take your hat off and fill it with water, and you>ve
got yourself a swimming pool.

Yep. Large brain, large cranium. Now in your case, a dust mite carcass would more[/quote]
than suffice.

---------------------
Be assured that a walk through the ocean of most souls
would scarcely get your feet wet.
-Deteriorata, Nat>l Lampoon

Byte Me · Guest

kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote in news:Kp2Pa.37635$C83.3071175
@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

[quote]Yep. Large brain, large cranium.
[/quote]
'Bloated ego, thick skull' is much closer to the truth in your case,
Ullman.

Byte Me · Guest

Goomba <goomba38@comcast.net> wrote in news:3F0CC2F6.F1FDCBC0@comcast.net:

[quote]
You>re a very angry sounding person. Don>t you ever have any humor? Are
you as miserable in real life as you appear here? What gives?

[/quote]
Can>t you read?

Goomba · Guest

Byte Me wrote:
[quote]
kurtullman@yahoo.com (Kurt Ullman) wrote in news:Kp2Pa.37635$C83.3071175
@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net:

Yep. Large brain, large cranium.

'Bloated ego, thick skull' is much closer to the truth in your case,
Ullman.
[/quote]
You>re a very angry sounding person. Don>t you ever have any humor? Are
you as miserable in real life as you appear here? What gives?

Virginia Knox · Guest

[quote]Daved wrote:
Does anyone here work in an ICU that recovers post op critically ill
patients. Because our PACU is understaffed the management has decided
in the daytime that it is our responsibility to recover patients that
will be going to the MICU postop. This requires at least an hour or
two of one on one care while someone has to help you by caring for
your other patients, while your playing PACU nurse. I personally have
had no training in PACU nursing and know nothing about anesthesia. I
think this is B.S., am I out of touch with whats going on elsewhere or
being unreasonable?
[/quote]
As a UK nurse in critical care, our recovery is one to one, as is our
intensive care, If we cannot give one to one care we don>t admit the
patients (in theory anyway, accidents do happen), but our acuity is
higher than the USA (& most of europe for that matter).

Regards, Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Guest

--
George Conklin
Herman Rubin <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:behued$1r0i@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
[quote]In article <VSSOa.36068$C83.2996555@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
georgeconklin@earthlink.net> wrote:

--
George Conklin
Herman Rubin <hrubin@odds.stat.purdue.edu> wrote in message
news:befnpq$36t4@odds.stat.purdue.edu...
In article <3f0b498b$1_1@news.buzzardnews.com>,
(null) <jeptha@shell.ntrnet.net> wrote:

...................

Putting healthy people on a drug treatment plan in order to improve
their
health and then finding it hurts their health is the issue Herman. You
always assume someone is sick. It is like calling life pre-death.

What is "healthy"? Is a woman with morning sickness, or
PMS, or the discomforts of menopause, healthy? Is someone
with thinning bones, which cause risks of fractures and
worse, healthy?

Should we vaccinate people? At the time we vaccinate them,
they are healthy, or at least not suffering from the disease
against which they are being vaccinated. Some people are
clearly hurt from the vaccinations, and for others, there is
no clear indication for the side effects, but it cannot be
ruled out.

You always go to extremes Herman. I am not one of your crazy[/quote]
anti-vaccination people who deny that the childhood diseases existed. Look
at Newsweek this week for an example of medical hysteria brought on the
medical/industrial complex. Demographers have long estimated that even
wiping out cancer would add only 2 years to the life expectancy of the
nation, yet we now have physicians with magic pills projecting that statins
and a few other drugs will add 11 years if everyone starts getting
maximally-medicated yesterday. It is all unethical behavior.


www.GetXFactor.com Leading Technology, Science, Agriculture News and information	Part of the Identityscape.com network... getxfactor.com jmoodmusic.com smartbusinesschoices.com mintdepot.com lowfaresalways.com evangelicalview.com shoppingpodder.com soproudlywehail.com webnews.ws currenthumor.com

Science and Technology news... Forum Index -> Medicine - Nursing Forum	Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 86, 87, 88 Next
Page 1 of 88