Jurors Side With Merck in Vioxx Trial

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
No one is interested?

i am... and this verdict sucks. one of the reasons i went into chiropractic rather than medicine was because of this... it disgusts me. i'm not saying there isn't anything about chiropractic that doesn't disgust me, but this sort of thing is almost universal among the medical model in the u.s.

The verdict disgusts you... why?

Did you read the article?

Why would one automatically assume a 52 year old lifelong obese woman's fatal heart attack would be remarkable enough to blame a drug she was taking?

i edited my post... read it again

OK... I read the edit and it still is meaningless and does not apply.

no need to be a dick. just say, "yeah, but you still didn't answer my question."

the verdict sucks, in my opinion, because i feel that the drug contributed to her death... but i don't have enough information to say for sure. plus, there's nothing mentioned about family history of chd/chf.

i just think that this drug contributed to her death... partly because it seems very possible and partly because of my anit-vioxx bias. the merck lawyers are trying to argue that the woman's health status was the cause of her death, but they left out the fact that the drug does cause cardiovascular problems. even if she did have a high percentage of occlusion in her arteries, the drug would have contributed to her death. no drug is without a level of side effects that everyone who takes them experiences.

it also seems like the doctor would be at fault if her heart health were so bad and he gave her a drug that has a higher instance of cardiovascular problems leading to death than other drugs. i'm drawing the assumption that either they tried suing the doctor that the doctor won on the grounds that there were no contraindications in the patient's health to keep her from taking the meds or the family felt that the drug was the catalyst for the woman's death, no matter what her health status was, which is why they ultimately decided to go after the drug company...

My gawd. You've made up an entire fairy tale to fit your own irrational bias.

Have you thought of working for Disney?

She was 52. Sedentary all her life. Morbidly obese all her life. She had diabetes AND high blood pressure.

But yeah, the drug killed her... that's it!

Wow...

i didn't say the drug killed her. i said the drug contributed to her death.

Really? Proof?

The problem is, you have none. None at all. And neither did their lawyers.

from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

And yet, after all that, you have no medical proof it caused or even contributed to her death. Only speculation.

Meanwhile, a life changing drug that freed millions from the constant pain of RA and OA is taken off the market because fat, old lazy women with diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity and genetic related problems had random heart attacks... heart attacks they were destined for anyhow.

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: eits
from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

It may have contributed to her death but the warnings about cox-2 inhibitors are generally displayed fairly clearly on Vioxx labels. She knew she was overweight, diabetic, and had high blood pressure, which seems to be all the diseases and characteristics of those who shouldn't take Vioxx, and yet she took it anyways. If there's a reliance issue, at most the doctor is at fault for prescribing Vioxx to someone that's obviously at risk.

yeah, the patient is responsible for their own level of health and how it's being cared for, but a vast majority of people don't know dick about what they're taking... they just take it because they think they need it (whether or not it's because of the doctor's influence or commercials or friends/relatives, etc.)...

 

[MrDudeMan]

Originally posted by: eits

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

are you seriously trying to blame this on the drug? i mean seriously? think about how stupid that argument sounds based on what we know about fatty mcsweatervest in the OP. she was obviously a cow with more problems than a disease clinic, yet you claim somehow the drug pushed her over the edge and killed her? wow is the only word that comes to mind.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: eits
from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

It may have contributed to her death but the warnings about cox-2 inhibitors are generally displayed fairly clearly on Vioxx labels. She knew she was overweight, diabetic, and had high blood pressure, which seems to be all the diseases and characteristics of those who shouldn't take Vioxx, and yet she took it anyways. If there's a reliance issue, at most the doctor is at fault for prescribing Vioxx to someone that's obviously at risk.

yeah, the patient is responsible for their own level of health and how it's being cared for, but a vast majority of people don't know dick about what they're taking... they just take it because they think they need it (whether or not it's because of the doctor's influence or commercials or friends/relatives, etc.)...

Well she took it at her own risk, without following the proper instructions and warnings. Should I be allowed to sue Tylenol if I just take a bottle? Just because people are dumb and take drugs without proper medical advice after watching a stupid commerical doesn't mean they're entitled to money from the drug company

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: MrDudeMan

Originally posted by: eits

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

are you seriously trying to blame this on the drug? i mean seriously? think about how stupid that argument sounds based on what we know about fatty mcsweatervest in the OP. she was obviously a cow with more problems than a disease clinic, yet you claim somehow the drug pushed her over the edge and killed her? wow is the only word that comes to mind.

as i said before, saying the drug killed her and saying that the drug contributed to her death are different things. just because she's morbidly obese and is in poor health doesn't mean that the drug didn't contribute to her death.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: eits
from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

It may have contributed to her death but the warnings about cox-2 inhibitors are generally displayed fairly clearly on Vioxx labels. She knew she was overweight, diabetic, and had high blood pressure, which seems to be all the diseases and characteristics of those who shouldn't take Vioxx, and yet she took it anyways. If there's a reliance issue, at most the doctor is at fault for prescribing Vioxx to someone that's obviously at risk.

yeah, the patient is responsible for their own level of health and how it's being cared for, but a vast majority of people don't know dick about what they're taking... they just take it because they think they need it (whether or not it's because of the doctor's influence or commercials or friends/relatives, etc.)...

Well she took it at her own risk, without following the proper instructions and warnings. Should I be allowed to sue Tylenol if I just take a bottle? Just because people are dumb and take drugs without proper medical advice after watching a stupid commerical doesn't mean they're entitled to money from the drug company

if you took the bottle, you went against the recommended dosage on the bottle. however, if you didn't have any contraindications to taking the drug and you take it and die (whether it's because you're in poor health or not), yeah... you should sue.

 

[Mo0o]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: eits
from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

It may have contributed to her death but the warnings about cox-2 inhibitors are generally displayed fairly clearly on Vioxx labels. She knew she was overweight, diabetic, and had high blood pressure, which seems to be all the diseases and characteristics of those who shouldn't take Vioxx, and yet she took it anyways. If there's a reliance issue, at most the doctor is at fault for prescribing Vioxx to someone that's obviously at risk.

yeah, the patient is responsible for their own level of health and how it's being cared for, but a vast majority of people don't know dick about what they're taking... they just take it because they think they need it (whether or not it's because of the doctor's influence or commercials or friends/relatives, etc.)...

Well she took it at her own risk, without following the proper instructions and warnings. Should I be allowed to sue Tylenol if I just take a bottle? Just because people are dumb and take drugs without proper medical advice after watching a stupid commerical doesn't mean they're entitled to money from the drug company

if you took the bottle, you went against the recommended dosage on the bottle. however, if you didn't have any contraindications to taking the drug and you take it and die (whether it's because you're in poor health or not), yeah... you should sue.

Even though the label says those with heart problems should not be taking them?

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Mo0o

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: glutenberg

Originally posted by: eits
from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

It may have contributed to her death but the warnings about cox-2 inhibitors are generally displayed fairly clearly on Vioxx labels. She knew she was overweight, diabetic, and had high blood pressure, which seems to be all the diseases and characteristics of those who shouldn't take Vioxx, and yet she took it anyways. If there's a reliance issue, at most the doctor is at fault for prescribing Vioxx to someone that's obviously at risk.

yeah, the patient is responsible for their own level of health and how it's being cared for, but a vast majority of people don't know dick about what they're taking... they just take it because they think they need it (whether or not it's because of the doctor's influence or commercials or friends/relatives, etc.)...

Well she took it at her own risk, without following the proper instructions and warnings. Should I be allowed to sue Tylenol if I just take a bottle? Just because people are dumb and take drugs without proper medical advice after watching a stupid commerical doesn't mean they're entitled to money from the drug company

if you took the bottle, you went against the recommended dosage on the bottle. however, if you didn't have any contraindications to taking the drug and you take it and die (whether it's because you're in poor health or not), yeah... you should sue.

Even though the label clearly says those with heart problems should not be taking them?

if you, your family, and your doctor are unaware of any heart problems, yes. the woman had risk factors for heart disease... that doesn't mean she has heart disease. without proving that she did, in deed, have heart disease, you can't really make the claim that she died solely because of the heart disease. you can, however, make the argument that the universal effects of cox-2 inhibition on the blood vessels and thrombosis could have contributed to her death.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
No one is interested?

i am... and this verdict sucks. one of the reasons i went into chiropractic rather than medicine was because of this... it disgusts me. i'm not saying there isn't anything about chiropractic that doesn't disgust me, but this sort of thing is almost universal among the medical model in the u.s.

The verdict disgusts you... why?

Did you read the article?

Why would one automatically assume a 52 year old lifelong obese woman's fatal heart attack would be remarkable enough to blame a drug she was taking?

i edited my post... read it again

OK... I read the edit and it still is meaningless and does not apply.

no need to be a dick. just say, "yeah, but you still didn't answer my question."

the verdict sucks, in my opinion, because i feel that the drug contributed to her death... but i don't have enough information to say for sure. plus, there's nothing mentioned about family history of chd/chf.

i just think that this drug contributed to her death... partly because it seems very possible and partly because of my anit-vioxx bias. the merck lawyers are trying to argue that the woman's health status was the cause of her death, but they left out the fact that the drug does cause cardiovascular problems. even if she did have a high percentage of occlusion in her arteries, the drug would have contributed to her death. no drug is without a level of side effects that everyone who takes them experiences.

it also seems like the doctor would be at fault if her heart health were so bad and he gave her a drug that has a higher instance of cardiovascular problems leading to death than other drugs. i'm drawing the assumption that either they tried suing the doctor that the doctor won on the grounds that there were no contraindications in the patient's health to keep her from taking the meds or the family felt that the drug was the catalyst for the woman's death, no matter what her health status was, which is why they ultimately decided to go after the drug company...

My gawd. You've made up an entire fairy tale to fit your own irrational bias.

Have you thought of working for Disney?

She was 52. Sedentary all her life. Morbidly obese all her life. She had diabetes AND high blood pressure.

But yeah, the drug killed her... that's it!

Wow...

i didn't say the drug killed her. i said the drug contributed to her death.

Really? Proof?

The problem is, you have none. None at all. And neither did their lawyers.

from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

And yet, after all that, you have no medical proof it caused or even contributed to her death. Only speculation.

Meanwhile, a life changing drug that freed millions from the constant pain of RA and OA is taken off the market because fat, old lazy women with diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity and genetic related problems had random heart attacks... heart attacks they were destined for anyhow.

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

OK, you just lost ANY and all credibility. I was suspicious when you said you were into chiropractic. But this just proved it. You're a quack.

Here is a site for you:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
No one is interested?

i am... and this verdict sucks. one of the reasons i went into chiropractic rather than medicine was because of this... it disgusts me. i'm not saying there isn't anything about chiropractic that doesn't disgust me, but this sort of thing is almost universal among the medical model in the u.s.

The verdict disgusts you... why?

Did you read the article?

Why would one automatically assume a 52 year old lifelong obese woman's fatal heart attack would be remarkable enough to blame a drug she was taking?

i edited my post... read it again

OK... I read the edit and it still is meaningless and does not apply.

no need to be a dick. just say, "yeah, but you still didn't answer my question."

the verdict sucks, in my opinion, because i feel that the drug contributed to her death... but i don't have enough information to say for sure. plus, there's nothing mentioned about family history of chd/chf.

i just think that this drug contributed to her death... partly because it seems very possible and partly because of my anit-vioxx bias. the merck lawyers are trying to argue that the woman's health status was the cause of her death, but they left out the fact that the drug does cause cardiovascular problems. even if she did have a high percentage of occlusion in her arteries, the drug would have contributed to her death. no drug is without a level of side effects that everyone who takes them experiences.

it also seems like the doctor would be at fault if her heart health were so bad and he gave her a drug that has a higher instance of cardiovascular problems leading to death than other drugs. i'm drawing the assumption that either they tried suing the doctor that the doctor won on the grounds that there were no contraindications in the patient's health to keep her from taking the meds or the family felt that the drug was the catalyst for the woman's death, no matter what her health status was, which is why they ultimately decided to go after the drug company...

My gawd. You've made up an entire fairy tale to fit your own irrational bias.

Have you thought of working for Disney?

She was 52. Sedentary all her life. Morbidly obese all her life. She had diabetes AND high blood pressure.

But yeah, the drug killed her... that's it!

Wow...

i didn't say the drug killed her. i said the drug contributed to her death.

Really? Proof?

The problem is, you have none. None at all. And neither did their lawyers.

from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

And yet, after all that, you have no medical proof it caused or even contributed to her death. Only speculation.

Meanwhile, a life changing drug that freed millions from the constant pain of RA and OA is taken off the market because fat, old lazy women with diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity and genetic related problems had random heart attacks... heart attacks they were destined for anyhow.

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

OK, you just lost ANY and all credibility. I was suspicious when you said you were into chiropractic. But this just proved it. You're a quack.

Here is a site for you:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

?? how did i lose credibility? i posted studies and articles that show that there are more things for arthritis sufferers than just vioxx. the links i provided were from both medical and chiropractic sites... two were from the nih (national institute of health) site. that doesn't make me a quack... it makes me more informed than you.

and for someone who tries to pride himself about not buying into propaganda and strongly biased websites with radical agendas, i'm somewhat surprised that you posted quackwatch.org.

is that what you do anytime someone comes up with a viable counterargument? you just take a break from the discussion to start namecalling because you can't make an informed enough rebuttal? you have never gone to medical or chiropractic school, so i explain what cox-2 does and how it could have contributed to this woman's death... but because you can't handle the fact that i've got a point and it goes against your argument, you excuse yourself from our civil and informative discussion to call me names? is that how it works? whenever i'm stumped by a counterargument, i don't act childish and start making slanderous accusations about your company...

i've been civil and respectful to you since the last time we butt heads and i asked you to return the favor. i honestly didn't think it'd be that hard for someone who's about 40 years old to return the respect that is being given to him.

look... just come back from left field and join the discussion again.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
No one is interested?

i am... and this verdict sucks. one of the reasons i went into chiropractic rather than medicine was because of this... it disgusts me. i'm not saying there isn't anything about chiropractic that doesn't disgust me, but this sort of thing is almost universal among the medical model in the u.s.

The verdict disgusts you... why?

Did you read the article?

Why would one automatically assume a 52 year old lifelong obese woman's fatal heart attack would be remarkable enough to blame a drug she was taking?

i edited my post... read it again

OK... I read the edit and it still is meaningless and does not apply.

no need to be a dick. just say, "yeah, but you still didn't answer my question."

the verdict sucks, in my opinion, because i feel that the drug contributed to her death... but i don't have enough information to say for sure. plus, there's nothing mentioned about family history of chd/chf.

i just think that this drug contributed to her death... partly because it seems very possible and partly because of my anit-vioxx bias. the merck lawyers are trying to argue that the woman's health status was the cause of her death, but they left out the fact that the drug does cause cardiovascular problems. even if she did have a high percentage of occlusion in her arteries, the drug would have contributed to her death. no drug is without a level of side effects that everyone who takes them experiences.

it also seems like the doctor would be at fault if her heart health were so bad and he gave her a drug that has a higher instance of cardiovascular problems leading to death than other drugs. i'm drawing the assumption that either they tried suing the doctor that the doctor won on the grounds that there were no contraindications in the patient's health to keep her from taking the meds or the family felt that the drug was the catalyst for the woman's death, no matter what her health status was, which is why they ultimately decided to go after the drug company...

My gawd. You've made up an entire fairy tale to fit your own irrational bias.

Have you thought of working for Disney?

She was 52. Sedentary all her life. Morbidly obese all her life. She had diabetes AND high blood pressure.

But yeah, the drug killed her... that's it!

Wow...

i didn't say the drug killed her. i said the drug contributed to her death.

Really? Proof?

The problem is, you have none. None at all. And neither did their lawyers.

from what i understand, cox-2 inhibition would cause vasoconstruction and platelet aggregation/clotting. taking a cox-2 inhibitor would inhibit cox-2... most of the time, the magnitude of the effects don't manifest to a degree where it would cause a patient problems, but in some cases it does. chemical/physiological changes happen inside your body anytime you take a drug... it's not like the changes only happen sometimes. it's just that sometimes the effects of the drug are too strong in some people and cause what we call side effects.

everyone who takes any drug gets side effects... most just don't experience them. it's at such a low level that it's undetected by the patient. just because you can't feel it doesn't mean it's not happening. that's why i think that the drug contributed to her death... because cox-2 was inhibited in her system, her vessels were constricted more than they would be had she not been inhibiting cox-2.

say that she DID have, say, 50% occlusion to her coronary artery. according to hagen-poiseuille's law:

v = fluid viscosity
L = length of vessel
R = resistance
r = radius of vessel

R = (vL/r)(8/pi)

let's say that a normal coronary artery is 4mm. let's say her's is 2mm because it's 50% occluded. the normal resistance to a coronary artery would be .001vL... her's, on the other hand, would be .16vL... the reason why this is important is that the vessel wall is taking a lot of resistance due to the occlusion, which affects the blood flow and blood pressure.

now, imagine resistance being further compromised because of vasoconstriction because of cox-2 inhibition... that would even further decrease bloodflow. not only that, but imagine the decrease in the vessel diameter due to plaquing... then, imagine a small blood clot (a result of cox-2 inhibition) trying to pass through there. it would end up getting stuck... especially the coronary artery. she'd end up having a heart attack and dying.

i'm not saying she's the picture of health... i'm saying that cox-2 inhibition probably contributed to her death.

And yet, after all that, you have no medical proof it caused or even contributed to her death. Only speculation.

Meanwhile, a life changing drug that freed millions from the constant pain of RA and OA is taken off the market because fat, old lazy women with diabetes, high blood pressure and other obesity and genetic related problems had random heart attacks... heart attacks they were destined for anyhow.

?? the fact that the defense was trying to say that she had a decrease in her coronary artery diameter plus the effects of cox-2 on the system is medical proof.

also, you're saying that the woman who died lived a sedentary lifestyle, which contributed to her poor health and death, regardless of whether or not the drug contributed. what kind of lifestyle do you think the typical patient suffering from r.a. and o.a. (bad enough to need vioxx)? you think they're up and jogging because it feels good? you think most of them cook healthy meals because it's easier than making something that's unhealthy? you don't think they'd have sufficient plaquing?

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/RA/#5
http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/abstract/131/6/409
http://www.chiropracticresearchreview.c...ages/arthritis_sufferers__1_2_2226.gif
http://nccam.nih.gov/research/results/gait/qa.htm
etc.

there are PLENTY of more effective, more cost-efficient, and less dangerous treatments for arthritis sufferers than vioxx...

OK, you just lost ANY and all credibility. I was suspicious when you said you were into chiropractic. But this just proved it. You're a quack.

Here is a site for you:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

?? how did i lose credibility? i posted studies and articles that show that there are more things for arthritis sufferers than just vioxx. the links i provided were from both medical and chiropractic sites... two were from the nih (national institute of health) site. that doesn't make me a quack... it makes me more informed than you.

and for someone who tries to pride himself about not buying into propaganda and strongly biased websites with radical agendas, i'm somewhat surprised that you posted quackwatch.org.

is that what you do anytime someone comes up with a viable counterargument? you just take a break from the discussion to start namecalling because you can't make an informed enough rebuttal? you have never gone to medical or chiropractic school, so i explain what cox-2 does and how it could have contributed to this woman's death... but because you can't handle the fact that i've got a point and it goes against your argument, you excuse yourself from our civil and informative discussion to call me names? is that how it works? whenever i'm stumped by a counterargument, i don't act childish and start making slanderous accusations about your company...

i've been civil and respectful to you since the last time we butt heads and i asked you to return the favor. i honestly didn't think it'd be that hard for someone who's about 40 years old to return the respect that is being given to him.

look... just come back from left field and join the discussion again.

That's the problem, eits. Not one of those links are valid. Not one of those links shows that alternative quackery is supported by peer review and repeated studies. In fact, quite the opposite. The first NIH link even has a disclaimer.

I'm not insulting you, eits. You did that all by yourself. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

 

[waggy]

I wqas Vioxx for a while. for me it did nothing. Also the pain clinic i go to was not suprised. he had a few others on it and it did nothing for them.

but i know 2 with RA (just the lower levels.) and vioxx was great for them. its to bad it was taken off the shelf it did help others.

For those of US in chronic pain the risk of takeing the drug is nothing IF it works.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits
?? how did i lose credibility? i posted studies and articles that show that there are more things for arthritis sufferers than just vioxx. the links i provided were from both medical and chiropractic sites... two were from the nih (national institute of health) site. that doesn't make me a quack... it makes me more informed than you.

and for someone who tries to pride himself about not buying into propaganda and strongly biased websites with radical agendas, i'm somewhat surprised that you posted quackwatch.org.

is that what you do anytime someone comes up with a viable counterargument? you just take a break from the discussion to start namecalling because you can't make an informed enough rebuttal? you have never gone to medical or chiropractic school, so i explain what cox-2 does and how it could have contributed to this woman's death... but because you can't handle the fact that i've got a point and it goes against your argument, you excuse yourself from our civil and informative discussion to call me names? is that how it works? whenever i'm stumped by a counterargument, i don't act childish and start making slanderous accusations about your company...

i've been civil and respectful to you since the last time we butt heads and i asked you to return the favor. i honestly didn't think it'd be that hard for someone who's about 40 years old to return the respect that is being given to him.

look... just come back from left field and join the discussion again.

That's the problem, eits. Not one of those links are valid. Not one of those links shows that alternative quackery is supported by peer review and repeated studies. In fact, quite the opposite. The first NIH link even has a disclaimer.

I'm not insulting you, eits. You did that all by yourself. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

no, you ARE trying to insult me, and in a pretty immature and smarmy way, i might add. i'm not doing anything except for providing a different point of view than yours and backing it up. just because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean that i'm insulting myself.

also, studies need time and money. it's easy for drug companies to get that because they've got their hands in the fda's pockets. money for research with alternative forms of care is not nearly as plentiful as it is for research for various drugs. the fact that there are alternative methods out there with a great number of people who are benefiting from them, enough to be mentioned at all as viable alternative methods, goes to prove that it's not "quackery." case and point: acupuncture.

you're trying to change the subject from whether the drug had anything whatsoever to do with the woman's death to trying to baselessly accuse me of "quackery." if you call anyone who provides information as to how something works a quack, then that must mean you know better than they do. so, please, enlighten me on how cox-2 works in your body and what happens when it's inhibited, dr. amused. also, while you're at it, prove to me that supplements and manipulative therapies to improve motion and, thereby, reducing nociception by releasing gaba, DON'T help the patient.

here's an article i thought you might find interesting

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits
?? how did i lose credibility? i posted studies and articles that show that there are more things for arthritis sufferers than just vioxx. the links i provided were from both medical and chiropractic sites... two were from the nih (national institute of health) site. that doesn't make me a quack... it makes me more informed than you.

and for someone who tries to pride himself about not buying into propaganda and strongly biased websites with radical agendas, i'm somewhat surprised that you posted quackwatch.org.

is that what you do anytime someone comes up with a viable counterargument? you just take a break from the discussion to start namecalling because you can't make an informed enough rebuttal? you have never gone to medical or chiropractic school, so i explain what cox-2 does and how it could have contributed to this woman's death... but because you can't handle the fact that i've got a point and it goes against your argument, you excuse yourself from our civil and informative discussion to call me names? is that how it works? whenever i'm stumped by a counterargument, i don't act childish and start making slanderous accusations about your company...

i've been civil and respectful to you since the last time we butt heads and i asked you to return the favor. i honestly didn't think it'd be that hard for someone who's about 40 years old to return the respect that is being given to him.

look... just come back from left field and join the discussion again.

That's the problem, eits. Not one of those links are valid. Not one of those links shows that alternative quackery is supported by peer review and repeated studies. In fact, quite the opposite. The first NIH link even has a disclaimer.

I'm not insulting you, eits. You did that all by yourself. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

no, you ARE trying to insult me, and in a pretty immature and smarmy way, i might add. i'm not doing anything except for providing a different point of view than yours and backing it up. just because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean that i'm insulting myself.

also, studies need time and money. it's easy for drug companies to get that because they've got their hands in the fda's pockets. money for research with alternative forms of care is not nearly as plentiful as it is for research for various drugs. the fact that there are alternative methods out there with a great number of people who are benefiting from them, enough to be mentioned at all as viable alternative methods, goes to prove that it's not "quackery." case and point: acupuncture.

you're trying to change the subject from whether the drug had anything whatsoever to do with the woman's death to trying to baselessly accuse me of "quackery." if you call anyone who provides information as to how something works a quack, then that must mean you know better than they do. so, please, enlighten me on how cox-2 works in your body and what happens when it's inhibited, dr. amused. also, while you're at it, prove to me that supplements and manipulative therapies to improve motion and, thereby, reducing nociception by releasing gaba, DON'T help the patient.

here's an article i thought you might find interesting

Yes, interesting in that it already tells me what I know. That 99% of that holistic garbage is just that, garbage. None supported by any real science.

Dude, you insulted yourself by falling for snake oil. Not only that, but you're apparently training to be a snake oil practitioner.

And no, YOU changed the subject by trying to claim snake oil remedies were more effective than actual proven medicine. I merely responded.

Don't accuse me of your crap.

 

[Mxylplyx]

Getting FDA approval should shield a drug company from any lawsuits over the use of it's product, barring any manipulation in the FDA approval process. The FDA should be in charge of monitoring the performance of the drug, and pulling the drug off the market if it is later determined to be dangerous. If manipulation is found during the approval process, any parties involved should be criminally liable.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused

Originally posted by: eits
?? how did i lose credibility? i posted studies and articles that show that there are more things for arthritis sufferers than just vioxx. the links i provided were from both medical and chiropractic sites... two were from the nih (national institute of health) site. that doesn't make me a quack... it makes me more informed than you.

and for someone who tries to pride himself about not buying into propaganda and strongly biased websites with radical agendas, i'm somewhat surprised that you posted quackwatch.org.

is that what you do anytime someone comes up with a viable counterargument? you just take a break from the discussion to start namecalling because you can't make an informed enough rebuttal? you have never gone to medical or chiropractic school, so i explain what cox-2 does and how it could have contributed to this woman's death... but because you can't handle the fact that i've got a point and it goes against your argument, you excuse yourself from our civil and informative discussion to call me names? is that how it works? whenever i'm stumped by a counterargument, i don't act childish and start making slanderous accusations about your company...

i've been civil and respectful to you since the last time we butt heads and i asked you to return the favor. i honestly didn't think it'd be that hard for someone who's about 40 years old to return the respect that is being given to him.

look... just come back from left field and join the discussion again.

That's the problem, eits. Not one of those links are valid. Not one of those links shows that alternative quackery is supported by peer review and repeated studies. In fact, quite the opposite. The first NIH link even has a disclaimer.

I'm not insulting you, eits. You did that all by yourself. I'm just pointing out the obvious.

no, you ARE trying to insult me, and in a pretty immature and smarmy way, i might add. i'm not doing anything except for providing a different point of view than yours and backing it up. just because you don't subscribe to it doesn't mean that i'm insulting myself.

also, studies need time and money. it's easy for drug companies to get that because they've got their hands in the fda's pockets. money for research with alternative forms of care is not nearly as plentiful as it is for research for various drugs. the fact that there are alternative methods out there with a great number of people who are benefiting from them, enough to be mentioned at all as viable alternative methods, goes to prove that it's not "quackery." case and point: acupuncture.

you're trying to change the subject from whether the drug had anything whatsoever to do with the woman's death to trying to baselessly accuse me of "quackery." if you call anyone who provides information as to how something works a quack, then that must mean you know better than they do. so, please, enlighten me on how cox-2 works in your body and what happens when it's inhibited, dr. amused. also, while you're at it, prove to me that supplements and manipulative therapies to improve motion and, thereby, reducing nociception by releasing gaba, DON'T help the patient.

here's an article i thought you might find interesting

Yes, interesting in that it already tells me what I know. That 99% of that holistic garbage is just that, garbage. None supported by any real science.

Dude, you insulted yourself by falling for snake oil. Not only that, but you're apparently training to be a snake oil practitioner.

And no, YOU changed the subject by trying to claim snake oil remedies were more effective than actual proven medicine. I merely responded.

Don't accuse me of your crap.

i didn't "fall for snake oil"... that's absurd.

don't accuse me of any of this snake oil bullshyt.

i didn't change the subject whatsoever... i was responding to your post where you were under the impression that vioxx is the only thing that's helpful for arthritis sufferers and it's a tragedy that it's being pulled.

the reason why i feel other methods are more effective than vioxx alone is because when used together with certain medications, you achieve a more favorable outcome for the patient. less medication is needed to achieve the result, as well. the use of acupuncture together with medicine has been found to be more useful than just using the medication itself. same with chiropractic and physical therapy (spinal motion yields gaba, which decreases pain). also, it's been shown that movement of the affected joints decreases pain as well and increases the range of motion for sufferers, which is healthier for them than taking a couple vioxx a day and suffering from risky side effects.

saying that there are other options is NOT quackery or fish oil sales. what it is is being aware that the only effective thing out is NOT a medication like the drug companies would want you to think. there are alternatives which many have been benefiting from, whether there's enough research to support why or not. just because there aren't stacks of studies on the matter doesn't mean that it isn't helpful for people. in time, i expect more and more studies to surface. until there are enough studies to prove one way or the other, i can still say that there are many people who benefit from alternatives to drugs and medications to manage joint pain because it's the truth.

 

[Amused]

The problem is, eits, no valid studies exist to prove your snake oil claims.

And that's the meat of it. They work because YOU believe they work. You have no other argument.

And yes, to RA sufferers the loss of Vioxx was a HUGE loss. I know this personally. My ex's mother suffers terribly from RA.

 

[flunky nassau]

Just a note Amused, many doctors prescribe medications anecdotally (sp?) Sometimes because it's worked for their patients in the past, or they developed some weird fondness for it. Not all prescriber habits are based on randomized controlled trials.

When I was interning at UCSF, our attending gave all her patients a water pill called bumetanide instead of the widely used & studied furosemide simply because she "thinks it works better." We tried to find studies concluding that bumetanide was more effective than furosemide but there were none. When the next attending rotated in, all the patients were placed back on furosemide. No one really argued with her since she was extremely knowledgable & was a world leader in pulmonary hypertension treatment.

So yeah, point is, sometimes medicine is more of an art than a science.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: Amused
The problem is, eits, no valid studies exist to prove your snake oil claims.

And that's the meat of it. They work because YOU believe they work. You have no other argument.

And yes, to RA sufferers the loss of Vioxx was a HUGE loss. I know this personally. My ex's mother suffers terribly from RA.

are you kidding me? what makes the study NOT valid enough to be taken into consideration? and what "snake oil claims" have i made??? the only claim i've made is that cox-2 inhibition causes a cardiovascular event, which you've completely overlooked in order to try and discredit me by calling me names like "snake oil salesman." the other OUTLANDISH claim is that vioxx is NOT a miracle drug for arthritis sufferers and there are other therapies which have yielded better results than just taking vioxx alone. omg... i must be trying to scheist people with my completely absurd claims and snake oil salesman antics... what the hell is wrong with me, claiming such nonsense?!

furthermore, why would i believe them to work? could it be because i know friends who have j.c.a. and r.a. and my best friend has a.s. and i know and have seen what has worked and what hasn't worked for them? not to mention that these "invalid" studies back up the claims of my friends? no... it can't be any of that... it's only because i randomly made it up in my mind without any basis or logic behind it... i just one day woke up and thought, "this would be a great day to start making stuff up."

and, no, vioxx is not a HUGE loss to r.a. sufferers. it's only a huge loss to the r.a. sufferers who don't know that there are other therapies and treatments that work better than taking vioxx alone. there are new drugs being made with less lethal side effects which almost stop the progression of inflammatory arthrotides as well as help deal with the pain.

i don't know any "snake oil salesman" who would claim that only their method of treatment is all the patient needs. everyone i know who has arthritis patients co-manages with their rheumatologist(s) and, sometimes, general practitioners. the name of the game is co-management, because just one method is not enough to help to a significant enough degree. medicine alone can't help make arthritis patients feel better and regain mobility, neither can chiropractic, neither can nutrition and supplementation, neither can acupuncture, neither can surgery, neither can anything else. you're claiming that ONLY medicine is the answer and it's not... you're wrong.

the bottom line is that you've resorted to namecalling in order to avoid the issue/arguments i've made because you can't come up with anything better than calling the valid studies invalid and by calling me a snake oil salesman. grow up and start acting your age.

 

[bctbct]

Amused, just because a plantiff may have a minute culpability in any given situation does not mean that the defendant is blameless.

This woman could have lived a day, week, month, or even decades being overweight and diabetic.

If there is a chance that Vioxx shortened that life, there should be a trial. Only a jury can decide each case based on the evidence based at each trial. That is the system we have.

Personaly from the little I know about this case, the Dr. seems more at fault. Maybe he is next.

 

[eits]

Originally posted by: bctbct
Amused, just because a plantiff may have a minute culpability in any given situation does not mean that the defendant is blameless.

This woman could have lived a day, week, month, or even decades being overweight and diabetic.

If there is a chance that Vioxx shortened that life, there should be a trial. Only a jury can decide each case based on the evidence based at each trial. That is the system we have.

Personaly from the little I know about this case, the Dr. seems more at fault. Maybe he is next.

exactly. i am in total agreement.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: eits

Originally posted by: Amused
The problem is, eits, no valid studies exist to prove your snake oil claims.

And that's the meat of it. They work because YOU believe they work. You have no other argument.

And yes, to RA sufferers the loss of Vioxx was a HUGE loss. I know this personally. My ex's mother suffers terribly from RA.

are you kidding me? what makes the study NOT valid enough to be taken into consideration? and what "snake oil claims" have i made??? the only claim i've made is that cox-2 inhibition causes a cardiovascular event, which you've completely overlooked in order to try and discredit me by calling me names like "snake oil salesman." the other OUTLANDISH claim is that vioxx is NOT a miracle drug for arthritis sufferers and there are other therapies which have yielded better results than just taking vioxx alone. omg... i must be trying to scheist people with my completely absurd claims and snake oil salesman antics... what the hell is wrong with me, claiming such nonsense?!

furthermore, why would i believe them to work? could it be because i know friends who have j.c.a. and r.a. and my best friend has a.s. and i know and have seen what has worked and what hasn't worked for them? not to mention that these "invalid" studies back up the claims of my friends? no... it can't be any of that... it's only because i randomly made it up in my mind without any basis or logic behind it... i just one day woke up and thought, "this would be a great day to start making stuff up."

and, no, vioxx is not a HUGE loss to r.a. sufferers. it's only a huge loss to the r.a. sufferers who don't know that there are other therapies and treatments that work better than taking vioxx alone. there are new drugs being made with less lethal side effects which almost stop the progression of inflammatory arthrotides as well as help deal with the pain.

i don't know any "snake oil salesman" who would claim that only their method of treatment is all the patient needs. everyone i know who has arthritis patients co-manages with their rheumatologist(s) and, sometimes, general practitioners. the name of the game is co-management, because just one method is not enough to help to a significant enough degree. medicine alone can't help make arthritis patients feel better and regain mobility, neither can chiropractic, neither can nutrition and supplementation, neither can acupuncture, neither can surgery, neither can anything else. you're claiming that ONLY medicine is the answer and it's not... you're wrong.

the bottom line is that you've resorted to namecalling in order to avoid the issue/arguments i've made because you can't come up with anything better than calling the valid studies invalid and by calling me a snake oil salesman. grow up and start acting your age.

Lots of yelling. Lots of whining. More claims.

And...

Still no valid studies.

And don't tell me about RA, eits. I know about it intimately. Vioxx was a miracle pain reliever for many. For many people it was simply the best drug for their pain.

Seems to me you are in desperate need of reading these pages:

http://www.quackwatch.org/

http://www.chirobase.org/

http://www.homeowatch.org/

 

[MrPickins]

Why is it always the same people who get into nested quote fights?

Unless your short term memory is so bad you can't remember the conversation you're having, it's ridiculous to quote the whole damn thing every time. And, it makes the thread a pain in the ass to read.

 

[Amused]

Originally posted by: MrPickins
Why is it always the same people who get into nested quote fights?

Unless your short term memory is so bad you can't remember the conversation you're having, it's ridiculous to quote the whole damn thing every time. And, it makes the thread a pain in the ass to read.

My short term memory is very bad.

 

[ponyo]

Any of you arguing own Merck stock? Or took Vioxx?