At 1:38 pm +1000 26/7/06, Tim Churches wrote:
[...]I share your outrage at this sort of gagging of scientific
documents for commercial reasons, Horst, but for Ken's sake, please
don't kick up a fuss, even in Germany, at least not until all the
legal actions are settled. It would be terrible if they pursued Ken
for an honest slip of the finger.
Tim C
_______________________________________________
My reading of the judgement is that it is not about "gagging of
scientific documents". It is about due process and the prevention of
potential commercial harm in the interim.
In particular the company made reference to the fact that their
preparation is somehow different to the preparations studied in the
published literature. Given that we know scientifically that there
can be differences in efficacy between registered pharmaceutical
products with the same apparent measures of active ingredients, then
this is not an unreasonable assertion.
Alternative and complementary medicines (and the whole outside world
of product and service marketing for that matter) are full of claims
of dubious scientific validity. Caveat emptor.
Ian.
--
Dr Ian R Cheong, BMedSc, FRACGP, GradDipCompSc, MBA(Exec)
Health Informatics Consultant, Brisbane, Australia
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
(for urgent matters, please send a copy to my practice email as well:
[EMAIL PROTECTED])
PRIVACY NOTE
I am happy for others to forward on email sent by me to public email lists.
Please ask my permission first if you wish to forward private email
to other parties.
_______________________________________________
Gpcg_talk mailing list
[email protected]
http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
