I'm trying to catch up a bit-
> John Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Nick Arnett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You would have us believe that on principle, people who fail to
> > foresee a negative event are thereby disqualified from
> > comprehending and responding to it?
<snip>
> Likewise, if a doctor does not know the effects of a medicine
> he prescribes, I am not willingly going to follow that doctors advice.
<grim laugh>
Then you should not take *any* medicine introduced to the market in the past
decade or so (unless it's for a terminal illness, in which case you have little
to lose). Recently developed drugs are never fully known, which is why the FDA
has post-marketing surveys (not that one should trust that body, underfunded
and oft in the pocket of the pharmas), and why some are pulled from the shelves.
We still can't explain all of the effects of aspirin, after all. (Although
that's more due to not understanding everthing about inflammation, as the
body's regulatory responses are discovered to be ever more complex with
increased research.) And look at the recent pull of cold and cough preps for
toddlers, after being on the shelf for decades.
There is no certain or 100% safe thing in the practice of medicine - nor in
life; the best one can hope for is the honest and informed inquiry/action of
experts and "ordinary" folk alike.
Debbi
Angels' Fear Maru
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
