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.

Biotech / Medical : XOMA. Bull or Bear? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: aknahow who wrote (8390)	1/20/1999 9:08:00 PM
From: Bluegreen	Respond to of 17367

George, the study you have been waiting for. But it was not an FDA sanctioned model, so is it believable? Think of all the studies in the world about efficacy that are worthless because not done under direct supervision of the FDA. All OTC and Natural remedies ALL worthless and non-efficacious because, once again, no FDA nod. All of these studies released to the unruly general public who might run around with their medicinals in brown paper bags just searching out any resident or clinician to help them. But wait, what does some moron running around with any medicine in a paper bag have to do with efficacy and whether or not they are prescription, OTC or natural products? Haven't some natural products been used with efficacy for centuries? Has the FDA required efficacy studies for each indication for even Aspirin? How can we believe ANY study done on Aspirin if a strict FDA efficacy model isn't involved? Imagine if you will a stoke study on Aspirin with a total mortality number! Please explain all of this to me, I might need another example like the grandma story. Do you have a grandpa Opalapril story that is applicable? Study finds fiber ineffective against colon cancer By Gene Emery BOSTON, Jan 20 (Reuters) - The conventional wisdom that a high-fiber diet can protect against colon and rectal cancers may be wrong, a study published in Thursday's New England Journal of Medicine said. But the findings of the 16-year study of nearly 89,000 nurses were not expected to eliminate doctor recommendations for people to eat diets rich in fiber. There is still evidence that fiber-rich diets can reduce the likelihood of heart disease, high blood pressure and some types of diabetes. Colon and rectal cancers account for 10 percent of all cancer deaths in the United States, killing about 56,500 Americans each year. Colon and rectal cancers strike about 138,000 people annually. The theory that a high-fiber diet can guard against colorectal cancer dates to 1971. Researchers also have noted that Africans, with their high-fiber diets, seldom are afflicted with these types of cancers. Previous research had backed up the high-fiber theory, but many of those studies relied on the sometimes-unreliable method of asking small groups of people about their diets after they already had developed cancer. ''Our study involved vast numbers of healthy participants, validation questionnaires and medical history, and had a significantly longer follow-up period,'' said the researchers, led by Dr. Charles Fuchs of Brigham and Women's Hospital in Boston. The new study, begun in 1976, got around the limitations of previous research by asking the nurses about their diets long before colon cancer appeared. Fuchs and his team then went back and compared the diets of women with colorectal cancer to women without it. ''We found no evidence that dietary fiber reduces the risk of colorectal cancer,'' the researchers concluded. The cancer was just as common in women with high-fiber diets as it was for women who ate little fiber, they said. In an editorial in the Journal, Dr. John Potter of the Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Centre in Seattle said the findings demonstrate how little experts know about the relationship between certain types of food and cancer. For example, the sugar content of the diet may influence cancer risk, Potter said.

To: aknahow who wrote (8390)	1/21/1999 1:59:00 AM
From: Bluegreen	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 17367

George, quick! Help me out here with this efficacy thing. Now there are people deluded into thinking that every medication used for "life saving" has to be deemed entirely efficacious by the FDA for I guess everything it is used for in "life saving". I never thought people who invest in biotechs would use efficacy arguments that didn't include off label usage in "life saving". Is every medical malady "life saving"? BTW, isn't it kind of narrow minded of some people to think that natural products don't or never will have a place in "life saving"? Some people seem to have wide swings in arguendo on efficacy matters I guess. We have gone from morons with brown paper bags to "life saving".<g> Also I don't ever remember me saying there shouldn't be efficacy studies, do you? I think the general public along with their private physicians can decide if it is "efficacious" by looking at the efficacy studies of the medicine in regard to their situation at hand, not the FDA and their lackeys using it in the approval process. Now safety, that is where the FDA comes in. Safety is where the FDA has failed miserably lately and needs to be addressed. Maybe, more time and money should be spent on safety by the FDA and let others look at efficacy data and decide for themselves.