Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : VOLTAIRE'S PORCH-MODERATED -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: stockman_scott who wrote (52332)	5/30/2002 2:28:47 AM
From: habitrail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

Just finished watching. I thought it was a pretty good takedown. A lot of stuff on how drug companies trick doctors and patients into thinking they really need the new new thing when the old thing actually does it cheaper and better (and sometimes safer). They also play games with their patent filings and attempt to bully doctors who publish studies they don't like. Surprise. Example Factoids: People taking blood pressure meds should supposedly avoid the calcium channel blockers because they actually increased the incidence of heart disease versus diuretics and beta blockers. Vioxx has not been proven to work better than alleve but it costs way more.

To: stockman_scott who wrote (52332)	5/30/2002 7:40:07 AM
From: habitrail	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 65232

CORRECTION regarding Calcium Channel Blockers I just started this new book "Junk Science Judo" and the second paragraph of the introduction says: "Two people died after they stopped taking blood pressure medication in response to alarmist reports of a scientific study linking calcium channel blockers with increased risk of heart attack. the study was so flawed, the researchers were forced to apologize to their colleagues." I apologize, I should have fact checked Peter Jennings first before posting my first message. I am usually skeptical of the news, but this one suckered me. Apparently this whole thing first came up in 1996, and this story is just a rehash. I know network news outlets routinely twist and stretch the truth to its design limits, but come on, the story was debunked publicly by the WSJ 6 years ago and again 3 years ago in another paper. I know why they do it, what I can't figure out is how they can keep getting away with it.