Actually, I would take issue with your logic. The AIDS analogy is way off base, because of time frame. With Redux having been sold in Europe since 1984, if those 30 Belgians were the tip of some hidden iceberg of cases, do you really believe that those cases would not have emerged after a decade or more? I do expect to hear of more cases announced by various European sources, but we are nowhere near the base rate of valvular pathology....i.e. the FDA has stated that 1-2% of individuals have such pathology; thus if you take their figure (and other estimates have ranged up to 6%;Framingham Heart Study) as correct, one should have 110-220,000 Redux users in Europe who have identifiable valvular pathology, based simply on the prevalence of that disorder in the general population. Until you exceed that level, you have not demonstrated that the use of Redux increased the risk of such pathology. The data thus far is weak, and mine is not the only credibility at stake here.
Based on what is known thus far, it remains possible that the duration of use of a fluramine, including Redux, influences the risk of valvular pathology to some degree (but I will bet my reputation it is not fifteenfold). I also believe that in the longrun, the addition of a stimulant (e.g. phentermine, Chinese herbal equivalents, etc), will be shown to amplify any risk presented by either Pondimin or Redux. To declare Redux exonerated at this time, based on this data, would be unreasonable hyperbole, just as are any dire verdicts of inevitable doom. There has been far more chaff than wheat in the information available thus far, and it will be a challenge for all observers to sort out which is which. We need some solid data, and the Belgian reports were no more solid than the US anecdotal reports (this is separate from the issue of disclosure, which as I posted earlier, appears to be a non-issue, in spite of the fervent hopes of litigation attorneys that it be one.)
NeuroInvestment |
