So how many benefited from Vioxx that may have died without it, compared to
those that died with it? [I dunno, but that's not the point]
Absolutism is just not part of reality...there is never just one answer.
[But it does make self defense very expensive for a drug company when
lawyers prosecute on absolutist terms using absolutist juries ]
The doctor is required to inform of risks...to the best of his
knowledge. Nothing is free of risk. It's ALL "Relative risk vs probable
benefit "
A doubled risk of heart attack, stroke and death persisted at least a year
after people stopped taking withdrawn painkiller Vioxx ..which means
"what? Double WHAT risk?
Does that mean 1 in 10,000 turns into 2 in 10,000 ?
The eight researchers reported in The Lancet that in the year after the
2,587-patient study was halted, 34 people who had taken Vioxx and 18 who
had taken placebo suffered a heart attack, for a 94 percent higher risk
with Vioxx; strokes occurred in 19 Vioxx users and nine people on placebo,
for a risk slightly more than double. Altogether, 76 Vioxx users and 46
placebo takers had a heart attack, stroke, blood clot or died during that
follow-up year.
So, if you have Arthritis, your risk may be higher of stroke and Vioxx
doubles that, but Vioxx is only part of the whole problem where WHY you are
using it plays a role.
According to the study the risk is 1% if you used it and .6 % if you didn't
with the reason for doing so in common and not using it doesn't mean you
won't have a stoke in a year.
If it actually does reduce pain and reduces other risks
like gastrointestinal inflammation over older anti-inflammatory drugs and
could also prevent recurrence of colon cancer compared to other
pain killers...is that risk acceptable compared to another risk of colon
cancer coming back or getting a stomach ulcer?
Aspirin is a derivative of a natural substance and the death toll record
from using it isn't clean...yet, it's pretty safe, but not as safe as
marijuana which does have a clean record, yet is illegal.[in most places]
Aspirin is touted to prevent stroke etc, but also may harm your stomach.
What if you used less Vioxx with less Aspirin ?
Second hand smoke kills and is bad, yet riding a bus exposes you to the
same air born carcinogens spewed out in volumes far greater in a minute
than a smoker will exhale over his entire shortened lifetime... and that's OK.
You'd be safer walking down wind of the smoker...and maybe get hit my the
bus.
No matter what you do, you can die.
Take the lettuce industry: 5 people get sick and the entire crop is
recalled and thrown away even though 10,000 people didn't get sick.
How can they stay in business? Do you really want to eliminate your
ability to buy lettuce or make it 50 times the price?
Can the same thing happen if you grow your own lettuce? Sure it can. But
the odds are very low still and there is no one to sue.
..not to mention that lettuce has a compound in it similar to Opium which
has killed many many people, but has also saved many many people from
suffering intolerable pain.
The logic is that automobiles should be outlawed because, despite being
useful in most cases, some people die in them and even though they know
they can be deadly, people take them to work and some don't make it
there...and they sometimes kill pedestrians who are avoiding the risks of
driving.
Don't eat lettuce ! It has Opium in it !
...and you made all the deer and rabbits into junkies by growing it without
using razor wire electric fences to cut them to ribbons and shock the crap
out of them for their own good.
So MJ Fox has the shakes and he drinks Diet Coke.
Would he have the shakes if he didn't? There's no way to know. Many
people that shake have never touched Diet Coke.
How many people swill down that nasty tasting stuff like water and don't
get the shakes?
Does Aspertame "cause" something, or does it merely contribute to another
cause..or is it just happenstance being lumped into a myth and called the
absolute unavoidable truth when only one in a million people fit the stats
for who knows what actual combination of reasons ?
NOTHING is absolutely harmless...not even plain water.
Ode
At 05:30 PM 2/27/2010 +0000, you wrote:
I *can* see most of that Ode, but I do think that if there is a
possibility that a substance that is sold as harmless - or even beneficial
- is *not* then people should have the knowledge given to them, so that
they can make an informed choice. After all, you or I could drink this
with impunity, but there may be others who - if they had been given the
information - may not have gotten sick if they had known that it could
have had that effect. For instance, the thousands of people who died from
taking Vioxx - if they had been told that this was a possibility - would
they have still taken it? Some may 'because the doctor said,' but some
might not have....and they would still be alive today. dee
On 27 Feb 2010, at 15:19, Ode Coyote wrote:
>
>
> The other side of that story is those looking for something easy to
blame and a following to make them feel important.
> The impossible solution is the easy fight..blaming what you can't
control is very safe but totally ineffective with no way to win, but
every way to continue the "good fight" and stick somebody up on a leader
pedestal that fears falling off and will say *anything* to stay up there.
> You will find propaganda on both sides of any issue.
> You just can't trust anyone to think for you, not on either side.
>
> I asked biochemists that don't make sweeteners and they confirmed the
info. So what.
>
--
The Silver List is a moderated forum for discussing Colloidal Silver.
Rules and Instructions: http://www.silverlist.org
Unsubscribe:
<mailto:silver-list-requ...@eskimo.com?subjectsubscribe>
Archives:
http://www.mail-archive.com/silver-list@eskimo.com/maillist.html
Off-Topic discussions: <mailto:silver-off-topic-l...@eskimo.com>
List Owner: Mike Devour <mailto:mdev...@eskimo.com>
