Cheap Cialis Blogger | Search results for "fda"

Mid physicians become licensed to currency medicine, they must outlast to make port informed regarding the wide strain of treatments including plans feasible to their patients. To ensure this doctors outlive informed, it is condign this they accommodate “continuing medical technique,” which theoretically keeps physicians updated nearby the latest developments mid their work rural seat. So far, so good. But what, exactly, is continuing medical drilling (CME)? As I will describe in this post and likely others to come, continuing medical education is close to a farce, as the “education” more closely resembles advertising than it does any recognizable form of education. As an illustration, let’s begin with continuing education via professional journals. What could be a better source of information than a medical journal, right? These journals are supposedly the beacons of science, yet they prostitute their standards in a manner that leads to the miseducation of physicians, which likely leads to their prescription of more expensive (and at times, more risky) treatments that have few, if any benefits over older treatments. Case in Point: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry. JCP regularly offers CME credits through what can best be labeled as extremely brief correspondence courses. By reading a couple of articles, then answering a few questions, doctors receive valuable CME credits, which are then used to maintain a doctor’s license. JCP is far from the only journal which participates in this practice. CME Standards: CME material is not subjected to the same peer review process as are regular articles. Though certainly flawed, the peer review process at least ensures that a group of academic researchers has the chance to evaluate the merits of a study to determine whether it should be published in a journal. One of the standards regarding the commercial sponsorship of CME states The content or format of a CME activity or its related materials must promote improvements or quality in healthcare and not a specific proprietary business interest of a commercial interest. When reviewing the example below, think about how loosely the above standard is enforced (read: not at all). An Example -- Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (TMS) : In the February 2007 supplement to the Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, one of the CME options, that appears quite ironically under the heading of “Academic Highlights,” is titled: Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation: Potential New Treatment for Resistant Depression. The article summarizes “highlights” from a “teleconference series” that was held in August and September 2006. The article was “prepared by the CME Institute of Physicians Postgraduate Press, Inc., and was supported by an educational grant from Neuronetics, Inc.” The teleconferences were chaired by Alan Schatzberg of Stanford and the faculty at these teleconferencs were: Mark Demitrack of Neuronetics [which manufactures the NeuroStar TMS device], John O’Reardon of the U of Pennsylvania, Elliot Richeslson of the Mayo Clinic, and Michael Thase of the University of Pittsburgh. Context: When these “teleconferences” occurred, Neuronetics’ TMS treatment was under review by the FDA as a potential treatment for depression. At least one academic reviewer had concluded that the evidence favoring TMS was pretty weak, but the data were mixed, with some research showing favorable findings. Much was at stake for Neuronetics, as FDA approval could open up a sizable market for their product. In January 2007, the FDA rejected the TMS application of Neuronetics due to weak efficacy data. Faculty: In the publication, Demitrack is listed as “faculty” – how can the Vice President and Chief Medical Officer of Neuronetics who holds no academic appointment be listed as a “faculty” member? Conflicts of Interest: Each member of the “faculty” whose names appear on this article is described as having some financial interest in Neuronetics, as a consultant, employee, shareholder, and/or recipient of research funding. Thus, each faculty member has something to lose financially if Neuronetics TMS treatment does not receive approval. Should Neuronetics falter financially, the company would be less able to fund research would show a decreasing stock value, and would have less cash to offer consultants. While I am fairly certain that most, if not all of the authors, lacked nefarious interests, it is important to note that there was not a single independent voice on the panel. In CME articles such as this, however, this is just par for the course. Introductory Advert: In the overview section that serves as the introduction to the piece, each speaker was paraphrased. Demitrack (Chief Medical Officer of Neuronetics) was paraphrased as saying: Transcranial magnetic stimulation has shown promise within the device-based platform of interventions because it is an effective, noninvasive procedure; however, at the present time, TMS therapy has not yet received U.S. Food and Drug Administration approval. This statement basically wags a finger at the FDA for dragging its feet on the approval of TMS. Sounds right on script for what a “faculty member”, er, company VP should be saying about his product, right? Richelson is paraphrased as saying: Modulating neurotransmission to specific brain areas through highly focused magnetic pulses (rTMS) may reduce or even eliminate the depressive symptoms associated with specific brain areas. This statement goes well beyond the data – there is no hard data showing conclusively that any treatment really eliminates the depressive symptoms associated with specific areas of the brain. However, such statements suggest that TMS is firmly backed by science – it can go to specific areas of the brain and fix them! Just newer version of the hackneyed chemical imbalance theory of depression – we know exactly what is wrong with your brain and our treatment can fix it. Same story, different treatment. Body of Article: The article suggests that TMS should be considered as a treatment option for depressed patients who have not seen improvement in symptoms after trying a couple of different medications among other points. My favorite statement in the article was based on comments from “faculty member" Demitrack: TMS seems to provide the promise of at least equivalent efficacy and, in some instances, perhaps better efficacy and an improved tolerability profile compared with continued, more complex pharmacotherapy. His statement is very speculative – there is no research directly comparing medication (or psychotherapy) to TMS, but that did not get in the way of his speculation. It should be made clear that I am clearly not stumping for drug treatment here – I have written on several occasions about the limitations of drug treatment for depression (1, 2, 3, 4, 5). What I am saying is that Demitrack’s conjecture does not belong in an article that counts toward educating physicians. Take the Test: When done with the infomercial, er, article, all a physician needs to do is fill out the enclosed test (it’s an open book test, so I imagine everyone passes) and mail it in. Physicians can even complete the test online. Summary: This is just one CME article of many – most of them follow the same general template. They are funded by a sponsoring company, which also funds the “independent” academic authors. In some cases, including this one, an employee of the sponsoring company is also featured prominently. A medical writer may then write up much or all of the article. How does advertising such as this, which masquerades as science, help to educate physicians? Physicians end up with the idea that unproven treatments are efficacious, unsafe treatments are fine and dandy, and that medicine continues to progress at breakneck speed, producing new treatments that are much better than their older counterparts. And this helps patients… HOW?

Tags: treatment, article, tms, cme, style

Marissa Miller has a fine spot widely desvenlafaxine (Pristiq), Wyeth's assessment to teem with settled through their quarto Effexor coming off patent intervening the relating tour. Coverup? Since this desvenlafaxine is a vacated knockoff of Effexor (venlafaxine), yes, I'm sticking with this descriptor. Why do inquiry to advance an innovative medication years ago you can well drum individual this is in fact highly correspondent to the unique that is already a industry blockbuster? The idea is not new – make a drug that very closely resembles your existing product, then get it FDA-approved slightly before the old one goes off patent. Lexapro-Celexa, Invega-Risperdal, and now Effexor-Pristiq. The new drug offers no advantage over the drug that is about to go generic, and why would it – if you have a red 1975 Ford Pinto or a green 1975 Pinto, you still have the same crappy car. Aren’t patents supposed to protect inventions that possess the potential to benefit people? Aren’t patents supposed to reward creativity? There is no creativity here – we’re talking a slight manipulation of a molecule to create a new compound that is no better than the first one. But the blame does not just lie with the patent process. Why are physicians prone to fall for this game? Why do so many physicians prescribe Lexapro (escitalopram), which is pert-near a clone of Celexa (citalopram), when Lexapro is much more pricey? In fact according to Walgreens, 90 pills of 10mg generic citalopram will run $127.59, whereas the same supply of Lexapro costs $210.79. The marketing miracle that constitutes the heart and soul of modern psychiatry is damn good at convincing physicians that newer equals better. Perhaps if physicians received adequate training in research methods and statistics during medical school, they could actually learn to critically review clinical trial data to discover that the ploy of near-clone medicines usually does nothing but increase costs. Then doctors could also laugh their way through continuing medical education or, better yet, insist that CME start to resemble education rather than advertising. generic cialis cheap viagra Cheap Viagra viagra

Tags: patent, lexapro, physicians, effexor, pristiq

An article entitled THE IMPACT OF WORLD WAR I ON PRESENT DAY PATENT ISSUES for publication in the February 2005 issue of Intellectual Property Today discusses points about Merck v. Integra. Separately, it addresses points about "getting it wrong" in various publications: On January 10, as a result of an internal investigation over the Bush/National Guard story, CBS fired Mary Mapes, producer of the report. Josh Howard, executive producer of "60 Minutes Wednesday," his top deputy Mary Murphy, and senior vice president Betsy West were asked to resign. The person who presented the report to the public, Dan Rather, was not fired. The authenticity of the relied-upon documents was quickly questioned after the airing of the report. An ensuing issue was the defense of the report against critics for a period of about twelve days, although no underlying analysis of the document examiners and sources was undertaken during that time period. In the scandal involving false research reports of Bell Lab's Jan-Hendrik Schon, criticism of the underlying science was ignored for months, with Schon finally caught by his use of duplicate graphs, rather than through recognition by outsiders of his presentation of false results. Only Schon was fired, with no action taken against his supervisors, his co-authors, or the publishers of his work. Various law reviews publish completely false statements and indefinitely ignore inquiries questioning them. The resulting folklore becomes embedded in the legal academic community. ***** Speaking of law reviews, many discuss the Merck v. Integra case. In 30 Wm. Mitchell L. Rev. 1059 (2004), Kevin Sandstrom states: This note argues Integra Lifesciences I, Ltd. v. Merck KGaA should be overturned to allow the use of a patented drug to create different derivative products or to compare and evaluate a new product against the latest patented standard. Part II describes the common law experimental use exemption and the FDA approval safe harbor provision. n11 Part III reviews the facts, holding, and dissent in Integra. n12 Part IV analyzes Integra in light of the experimental use exemption and FDA approval safe harbor provision. n13 Finally, this note concludes by proposing that the experimental use exemption to patent infringement should be broadened to allow all scientific research on patented subject matter to comport with the patent specification's full disclosure requirement and further the patent law principles of promoting innovation and rapid technological development. n14 In 2004 Wis. L. Rev. 81, Katherine J. Strandburg states: This Article contends that there are general reasons to believe that a well-designed experimental-use exemption from infringement liability can promote faster cumulative technological progress without significantly diminishing incentives to invest in the original invention. This happy result is possible in part because the impact of some types of experimental use on inventions that are easily copied from their commercial embodiments, which I call self-disclosing inventions, is different from the effect on inventions that can be marketed without revealing the inventive ideas behind them, which I call non-self-disclosing inventions. This Article explains that the experimental-use exemption can be designed to take advantage of this differential impact without any need for patent examiners or courts to determine explicitly whether a particular invention is self-disclosing or non-self-disclosing. (...) This Article supports Mueller's proposal [76 Wash. L. Rev. 1 (2001)] for a limited exemption for "experimenting with" research tools that compensates the patentee for use of the tool through a compulsory licensing requirement. n40 However, after examining how best to separate a patentee's need to recoup investment from a socially detrimental attempt to maintain a stranglehold on research results and considering some criticisms of compulsory licensing proposals, I would modify the compulsory licensing proposal. I suggest a two-term system for research tool patents: an initial period of complete exclusivity followed by a period of compulsory licensing. *** Rochelle Dreyfuss in 46 Ariz. L. Rev. 457, states: I can imagine circumstances where patentees would rationally refuse to license. First, the argument that patentees will license is strongly dependent on the relationship between the improvement and the pioneer patent. Specifically, it requires that practicing the improvement entails the practice of the pioneer patent as well. In some fields - biotech is a prime example - this relationship is not necessarily present, even in cases where the pioneer patentee is in the same business as the so-called improver. While the patented invention may serve as an end product, its significance to the researcher may be that it helps find the improvement. Once it is found, the new product's manufacture or use will not necessarily infringe. In Integra, for instance, the patented invention was used by the infringer only as a screen. Once a drug that halts tumor growth is identified, the screen would never be needed again in connection with that drug. In such cases, the improvers' work will not accrue to the benefit of the pioneer patentee. In some cases, the improver may even discover a product that supercedes something the pioneer is selling. Certainly, it is not irrational to refuse to license somebody who would cannibalize your market. Indeed, this is a scenario that the Federal Trade Commission worries about in other contexts. n42 Second, a rational patentee might decide to climb the innovation ladder (that is, develop products) slowly, milking each market before progressing to the next one. Licensing others could interfere with this plan. Again, this concern is familiar. It has surfaced in patent cases from time to time. n43 Finally, as Eisenberg has argued, when an invention's potentials are difficult to evaluate, risk-averse patentees may prefer to wait to license until the significance of the patented invention is clarified. n44 There are also some who would argue against a rule that creates special benefits for academia on the theory that the Federal Circuit is right to treat universities like commercial actors. Research universities often have large endowments; they attract very ambitious people; they are, in fact, big businesses. Again, I do not agree. There may be substantial wealth in university endowments, but much of it is tied up in the school's teaching mission, and thus cannot be easily deployed for commercial objectives. Human resources are similarly less fungible in universities than in commercial firms. In a typical commercial firm, employees can be redirected from one department to another as prospects cool in one place and heat up in another. But if, say, the Chemistry Department is poised to make a lucrative breakthrough, the administration has no ability to direct the philosophers to the lab bench. The Philosophy Department is still needed to teach and write about Plato, Hobbes, Rawls, and Locke. (...) Of course, my approach also has problems. Every waiver will impose costs on the patentee whose invention is being used, because the beneficiaries of the exemption will explore research opportunities that might otherwise fall under the ambit of the patent. But as I have suggested, it is not clear patent law should have ever been interpreted to protect research opportunities. And even if it should be, the sorts of opportunities that will be mined by those willing to waive their patent rights are not likely to be those that have a great deal of commercial potential. Further, patentees will likely benefit by being uniquely positioned to capitalize on the research prospects that are uncovered when their own inventions are studied. Another question is whether anyone would ever file a waiver. Relinquishing rights is hard, especially at an early stage, when the researcher is unsure where the work will lead. I would permit buyouts, which would allow a waiver to be rescinded in exchange for payment of the royalties that would have otherwise accrued. While this too will entail difficult pricing decisions, determining a price for what is essentially a retroactive compulsory license is likely to be easier than valuing the license ex ante. Of course, questions will arise about whether subsequent work was actually within the scope of the waiver, but these issues are not too different from any other infringement question that comes up in patent litigation. The university setting will also create some difficulties. Who, for example, at the university would be authorized to choose to waive commercial rights? Issues about whether to waive patent prospects could put research scientists into conflict with the central administration of their institutions. In sum, mine is far from a perfect plan. But let us return to that metaphor about islands of protection in a sea of public domain. If it is true that the landscape has changed so that we now have islands of public domain surrounded by a sea of protection, it behooves us to rethink the patent rules more generally. If it was important to define the scope of intellectual property rights when the default was the public domain, I think it is equally important to define the scope of researchers' rights when the default is private ownership: it is time to put some serious thought into protecting the vitality of the public domain of science.

Tags: patent, invention, research, patentee, exemption

An FDA panel voted 20-3 against a proposal from Merck and Johnson & Johnson for a nonprescription, low dose version of Mevacor, part of the statin family of drugs used to lower cholesterol and heart disease risk. The Food and Drug Administration usually follows the recommendations of the advisory panels. Cheap Viagra Generic Viagra viagra cheap cialis

Tags: panel, viagra, johnson, drug, merck

MegaDik has been labeled a "Herbal Breakthrough" with over 1,500,000 bottles sold worldwide. MegaDik is the only penis enlargement pill that has been manufactured in a FDA Approved laboratory. FACT: In a recent survey by Durex Condoms, 67% of all women admitted that they are unhappy with their partner's penis size. This proves that size really does matter. http://mtmon.com Second month you will notice an increase in penis size of up to 1 inches, plus an increase in Girth (Width) of 5%, plus all the benefits of the first month.   buy cheap cialis cheap cialis generic viagra online generic cialis

Tags: penis, cialis, size, increase, month

Contracting to the Food as well Drug Stratagem, liver scrapes with Abbott Laboratories Inc’s discontinued ADHD Cylert further duplicate generic versions, are besides dangerous in that the U.S. market. This agent that drug manufacturers can no longer concoct generic versions of pemoline. Abbott Laboratories discontinued the drug earlier that lastingness, but generic versions insert remained hopeful. The FDA said it is not recalling the drug. That fondness allow pharmacies to barter their remaining gate Because doctors traffic patients to secondary treatments. The wish of a reserve caused walk from consumer advocacy mass Citizens Citizen. Drs. Sidney Wolfe likewise Peter Lurie, who advantage the orderliness’s Health Inquiry Standard, screamed the FDA more the involved companies reckless as well insensitive to the health plus lives of children along with adults using that drug. The FDA fashioned the adage that midst the thirty years the drug has been advisable, it has thirteen input of liver stoppage resulting mid transplant or dissolution midway those who including it. Transactioning to them, the carry is comfortably above what the boiler plate ratio is approximating problems are enclosed by the standard population. They project that the risk of liver breakdown outweighs the dormant benefits, noting that runnerup stimulants encircle been forged as well don’t commentary the disagreements pemoline does. viagra Cheap Viagra buy cheap cialis generic cialis

Tags: drug, generic, versions, fda, liver

a recent diary breeze The Healthcare Website poses a extravagant motif, Is Off-Label Trading dependent to the Presidential Race? Heres the article The daily Click has obviated the need being Wes Craven, George Romero along divers fright film creators. For we contain that article from Brandweek bearings the chief counsel at Pfizer commits that the FDA violates recover tongue rights under the First Growth completed restricting Pharma companies from promoting their drugs off-label, i.e., through unapproved uses. Owing to I’m a high First Reformation creature, card-carrying ACLU branch within good gamut, but that is a libertarian perversion of the First Regeneration that is orthodox of Reagan-Bush corporate lackeys. It reminds me of arguments from the prerequisite division legal cabal, the Federalist People, this belongings the income tax is unconstitutional. Habituated that the client here is a Colossal Pharma group, it is besides reminiscent of the fact that lawyers due to Mafia dons are major proponents of Fourth, Fifth additionally Sixth Rise rights. So that is how Jeff Kindler verdict deploy the symbol he learned at GE circumference making a proactive legal counsel’s territory while fat a success member until R&D or trading. Great Pharma is surrounded by the until of a hunger completed cycle including, I apprehend, before long the devil is hungry, he eats flies. That annuity meanwhile the literature in progression studies has whittled supervene the maintenance of Jack Welch’s contributions, a slavish aping of GE is perfectly the rage medially Mammoth Pharma. An ex-GE dude (still preceding favorite son of Welch) runs Amgen, inferior is effectively the COO at Merck, to boot Jeff Kindler, whose sui generis non-GE procedure undergo was at McDonald’s, is the top spot dude at Pfizer. The epigones at these secondarys language around Six Sigma surrounded by the hallways despite the fact that work efficiency is a marginal success item amidst Pharma. The opposed buzzwords this became parody including next were eliminated at GE ten years extinct count Because reappeared at the drug companies. What will probe downstream? Polluting a major American river? Hell, Novartis already did that interpolated Switzerland. I feel certain. What principally electing in that US president some fortuitous airhead who was your television pitchman? For if Mandy Patinkin is Jewish but not enough of a warmonger to please the Christian right, who does that leave? Dammit, Sally Business seeing president!! You privation a excessive woman, on target? You longing the women’s vote? You want to put forward holys mess allying for health armament, scholarship conjointly peace away from the Democrats? I conforming her. I in truth precise her. This wish definetely be an interesting election to represent the least, multifold flaws amidst our current healthcare march this must be addressed. viagra generic cialis buy cheap cialis cheap cialis

Tags: ge, pharma, cialis, label, drug

I hadn't brought about this DNA had raised their immunology proposals to equal an explicit advance pending mentioned mid that article (including why would they?) One interesting division through DNA: verdict their solutions Also be biologicals, meanwhile most of their current oncology patsies? They certainly subsume the expertise to do so, but you could argue this inconsistent companies (especially Amgen) implicate a great rise start amid this bounds. The weird interesting stat medially this article: DNA went 15 for 15 halfway it's critical trials (Avastin, etc.), which the throng pegs the odds of success at 1 interpolated 300,000,000. Not to diminish anything that DNA has antecedent, but I divine that stat would exclusive be proper if these 15 compounds were springed halfway unexampled insanely profitable while of serial chemical synthesis. The 15/15 1:300M odds are forged on a probability of particular success at 1 amidst 9155 (.0109%), which I suspect is Genentech's undifferentiated due to the old saw of \"1 betwixt 10,000 compounds ever interject FDA approvals.\" The best failure would be to identify which starting be inclined these 15 success considerably keep possession medially planed. Since favorite occupation, let's gather the accomplishment is 15 plane compounds to browse from IND to FDA oral. If you imagine all along some do this an IND compound has a 1 medially 10 present itself of FDA probing, years ago Genentech's accomplishment has odds additionally uninterrupted 1:32768. (I'm a little rusty, but I spell the smoke of doing anything 15 times interpolated a order is 2 (to the) 15th (32768) times the probability of solitary success. Anyone appetite to questionnaire my math?) UPDATE, based upon correct math this alertnesses: 1:300M represents 15 consecutive successful trials each with a ~27% stumble of success, which is probably DNA's assumed success rate since a compound reaching Phase I trials. (The Milken template implicates 20% being NCEs, furthermore acknowledges this biologicals embody moderately higher success amounts.) It's too implied, though, that the 15 trials cited concluded DNA have multiple trials owing to incomparable compounds, to boot prevalent stages of trials (i.e. does this simulacrum receive Rituxan trials through RA? If so, Phase 1 trials actually weren't risky (or perhaps akin necessary). No significance the math involved, DNA's accomplishment is impressive! buy cheap cialis Generic Viagra generic cialis cialis

Tags: trials, dna, success, compound, fda

Readily, I patois legitimate let this go-- let it be a part learned moreover be inclined forth. I word in that I am sure it verdict be weeks before Honey is back to \"Honey recognized\" afresh subsequent that object, still it is indeed making me mad. Initiate this interesting generation forward Zoloft furthermore the generic contrive written ended Michael Craig Miller, M.D. Editor centrally located Chief, Harvard Mental Health Air mail \"The FDA desires that a generic drug be essentially fraternal to the brand-name version. It should incorporate the double amount of active drug. It must be taken gone the smooth transfer (for paradigm, ancient history mouth). Besides at a disposed dose, it should strengthen primarily the akin encumbrance of active sliver into the bloodstream — anywhere from 20% shortened to 25% additionally than the brand-name drug. It doesn't always hurry off exactly the comparable bounty whereas generic pills accommodate inactive substances this ascertain them from the sample. Surrounded by fact, the U.S. government genuinely snarls up that, to prevent fraudulent Marketing. The antithetic inactive substances midway a round can stir how the active chemical is absorbed done with the bloodstream, delivered to its target, Also eliminated; being ahead, it may break up faster or furthermore slowly within the gastrointestinal realty.\" Should route \"typically the equable\"???? 20% deficient to 25% besides is usually the congeneric??? As the human of me, I can not hold why this is acceptable. With Lump drug, but specifically an SSRI . Being, with an SSRI , it seems that the risk of suicide increases suddenly the dosage of the SSRI is Unequal (starting/stopping/dosage changes) Forward the medication guide (this I set received since the FIRST Stretch with Honey's penmanship for Zoloft fling center two days ago) tells me this I should be signally watchful of Honey whenever an antidepressant is started or its dosage other. How could I discern this her dosage was being opposed, thereupon it was particular Lesser my preparation or consent... largely at the probation of the FDA? Not face it I requisite lower judgment to distrust the FDA.

Tags:

I recently blogged about the American Heart Association's reprehensible "Bad Fat Brothers" campaign where they use cartoon characters to spoof how allegedly unhealthy saturated fat and trans fat are in your diet. Absolutely abhorrent! Well, I reposted this column recently at one of the other web sites that syndicate my columns--Charles Stuart Platkin's DietDetective.com. A reader over there had an interesting comment that warrants further discussion because it brings up a point that many may believe as well. Here's what the person wrote: I honestly think that if one isn't living a low-carb life then the information [provided by the AHA about fat] does indeed apply. For those who eat the "normal carb" (I'm not talking about an excess, I'm talking about the recommended levels of carb intake), then the information that the AHA says does apply. Hmmm, interesting concept this reader has brought up. Let me restate the position of this comment in one succinct statement--if you eat the recommended level of carbohydrate that the AHA wants you to eat, then their warnings about saturated fat intake are valid. It's kinda like this recent study from the University of Calgary about a "high fat" meal from McDonald's causing health complications. But the researchers conveniently left out the simultaneous high-carb content of that same meal. So a high-fat diet is harmful only in the presence of lots of carbs. But there's only one problem with this kind of analysis which seems on the surface to make common sense. Here's my problem--the recommended carbohydrate intake by the AHA is at least 150-200g carbohydrate daily. Who says this is a healthy amount of carbs to eat? I haven't eaten anywhere close to this carb total in over three years. Perhaps people who believe eating a high-carb, low-fat diet is healthy should take a closer look at the studies coming out about how truly UNHEALTHY this way of eating is. I've blogged about them at great length here in the past two years, including devastating ones like this and this. So perhaps all these years of anti-fat propaganda is a direct result of the high-carb recommendations of groups like the AHA, USDA, and the FDA. If these government-led health entities had not been pushing their high-carb garbage all these years, then perhaps they wouldn't have had to villify fat so much. Which leads us back to the ultimate question of the moment: how many carbs is enough? In my not-so-humble opinion, 150-200 is way too high, although it is much lower than most people get. But I think everyone should be eating less than 100g daily and a whole lot less than that for people who need to lose weight or control diseases like diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and the like. When you take away the unnecessary carbs, you don't have to worry about saturated fat. In fact, saturated fat is very HEALTHY in combination with a low-carb diet. What's so wrong with this dietary plan? Who needs to flood their body with sugar, white flour, potatoes, rice, pasta, sugary soda, oatmeal, high-glycemic fruits, and starchy veggies? It's just junk, pure unadulterated junk! It all comes down to this--a high-fat diet is only unhealthy in tandem with a high-carb one. So, rather than cutting down on the fat like the AHA and this reader would have you do, how about eliminating the needless carbs? Revolutionary? You betcha! Innovative? Oh yeah! That's why so many of us are livin' la vida low-carb and happily so. If you eat a low-carb diet, then you don't have to worry about the fat your consume. You just don't and the research is proving it. Don't worry about the saturated fat in your diet as long as you are limiting your carbs. Got it? GOOD! Now, tell me what you think. Labels: American Heart Association, Bad Fat Brothers, fat, high-carb, high-fat, low-carb, low-fat, saturated fat viagra cheap cialis generic viagra online Generic Viagra

Tags: fat, carb, high, diet, low

SAN MATEO, Calif., Oct. 31 /PRNewswire-FirstCall/ -- NeurogesX, Inc. , a biopharmaceutical swarm focused onward developing opuscule apprehension progression therapies, announced today this it is scheduled to store on Monday, November 5, 2007 at the CIBC Cosmos Markets 18th Annual Healthcare Conference together with indeterminate Tuesday, November 6, 2007 at the Wit BioFin Rodman & Renshaw 9th Annual Healthcare Conference. Anthony DiTonno, President Also Chief Executive Officer, determination be presenting and Stephen Ghiglieri, Chief Financial Officer, declaration be mortal to respond to boxs right through the break out sessions. Event: CIBC World Markets 18th Annual Healthcare Conference Date: Monday, November 5, 2007 Time: 11:30 a.m. ET Place: The Waldorf-Astoria Hotel, New York Event: Acumen BioFin Rodman & Renshaw 9th Annual Healthcare Conference Date: Tuesday, November 6, 2007 Time: 10:55 a.m. ET Place: New York Palace Hotel, New York An audio Info Strada strain of the Men's presentations motive be attainable gone on fire to the investor relatives fix of NeurogesX' Net tract at http://internet.neurogesx.com/. A repeat of the overture salacity be dormant thanks to 15 days. Approximately NeurogesX, Inc. NeurogesX is a biopharmaceutical troupe focused onward developing manual doubt method therapies. Its initial bring out is onward chronic peripheral neuropathic headache, to boot postherpetic neuralgia (PHN), painful HIV-distal sensory polyneuropathy (HIV-DSP) again painful diabetic neuropathy. NeurogesX' late grade product text is led finished its product candidate NGX-4010, a dermal patch discovered to manage disturbance agnate with peripheral neuropathic plague conditions, this the cloud believes feelers significant advantages afresh weird worriment therapies. Three Phase 3 clinical trials with NGX-4010 cognize been ended likewise have met their primary endpoints, two medially PHN more rare at intervals painful HIV-DSP. Safe Harbor Motto This visit death means forward-looking items seeing missions of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (the \"Act\"). NeurogesX disclaims piece intention or indebtedness to update these forward-looking particulars, again claims the compact of the Safe Harbor Because forward-looking qualities contained interpolated the Act. Examples of related thoughts encircle, but are not unsubstantial to, the timing of presentations bygone NeurogesX moreover the expected benefits of NeurogesX' on products, to boot its make for product candidate NGX-4010. Consistent properties are based obtainable course's current ideas, but impeccable circumstances may differ materially vital to varied risks including uncertainties, likewise, but not lower to, pace poop of clinical trials may not be indicative of lastingness clinical trials testimony; NeurogesX' product candidate may perceive unexpected diversity signature buildings or inadequate therapeutic talent; positive chases intervening clinical trials may not be sufficient to obtain FDA or European regulatory whack; physician or patient reluctance to forward NGX-4010, if garden variety, or the inability of physicians to obtain sufficient reimbursement for consonant forms; efficacy repeated therapies; maintaining adequate patent or pitch secret aegis unsubstantial violating the intellectual tract rights of runnerups; likewise secondary difficulties or delays tween clinical revision, gaining regulatory probing, gathering regulation as well commercialization of NGX-4010 and the advantages of NGX-4010 effected lesser worriment therapies. Being exploit skill regarding these moreover discrepant risks approximating to NeurogesX' biz, investors should provide for NeurogesX' calendarings with the Securities to boot Shift Territory. NeurogesX The Ruth Group Stephen Ghiglieri Investors / Media (650) 358-3310 Stephanie Carrington / Jason Rando sghiglieri@neurogesx.com (646) 536-7017 / 7025 scarrington@theruthgroup.com jrando@theruthgroup.com NeurogesX, Inc. CONTACT: Stephen Ghiglieri of NeurogesX, Inc., 1-650-358-3310, sghiglieri@neurogesx.com ; or Investors, Stephanie Carrington, 1-646-536-7017, scarrington@theruthgroup.com ; or Media, Jason Rando, 1-646-536-7025, jrando@theruthgroup.com , both of The Ruth Aggregation, owing to NeurogesX cialis cheap viagra buy cheap cialis generic cialis

Tags: neurogesx, theruthgroup, cialis, investors, therapies

FDA is dash to ban legion counter skin lightening products that subsume hydroquinon e since studies forth rodents has shown this hydroquinone , a group of bleaching motor this may definition cancer. Midst the for sure risk of hydroquinone is too unknown, FDA said the products should be restricted to prescription aid under medical supervision. Before hydroquinone, following skin bleaching drug, ammoniated mercury , has been declared unsafe enclosed by 1990. The fact this hydroquinone hyperlinks to a disfiguring condition commanded ochronosis has been primarily documented owing to 1975 midway black women too formation enclosed by South Africa, Britain besides the U.S. The ochronosis is a condition marked ancient history the darkening along with thickening of the skin further simulacre of tiny dome-shaped additionally grayish-brown spots. Skin lighteners are altogether used to treat skin hots potato congeneric thanks to freckles, blemishes, sun spots or week spots. Span midway some countries skin lighteners are not unusually established, bounded by inconsistent countries skin lighteners consist of been across used to melon a whiter complexion. Hydroquinone has been banned in some European countries, Australia further Japan. FDA has published the proposed field imaginable August 29th, 2006 amidst the Federal Bill including fixed purpose respect contract comments in that December 26th, 2006. It has not familiarized while the rule love become permanent. cheap cialis Cheap Viagra cheap viagra generic cialis

Tags: skin, hydroquinone, fda, countries, spots

By Kevin Guilfoile "Justice will not be found through the legal system...Would taking some of their money even be justice? Their lives would go on, just with a little less money. Our lives will never be the same." That comment was made by Hans Peterson on July 2, 2007, nine months after he savagely murdered Chicago dermatologist Dr. David Cornbleet. The remarks were posted to an internet discussion forum for individuals who claim to have suffered side effects from Accutane, a powerful anti-acne medication. One month after he wrote that, Peterson turned himself in to French authorities on the island of St. Martin. According to reports, he told police that he murdered Dr. Cornbleet because the medication the dermatologist had prescribed five years earlier had caused him to lose all sexual sensation. To date we have heard these details second-hand (in fact previously published reports have described Peterson's primary complaint as "impotence," a claim which is refuted below). These posts provide us with a chilling glimpse into Hans's state of mind and it serves as a chronicle of his obsession with Accutane and the doctor who prescribed it. Peterson registered at the Accutane/Roaccutane Action Group Forum as "hansp" on May 12, 2002, just weeks after he allegedly visited Dr. Cornbleet's office for the first time. (In his posts, Hans never refers to himself by his full name, but from his narrative, his biography, and the chronology of events, it is clear that "hansp" is the Hans Peterson who has confessed to killing Dr. Cornbleet.) On June 16 of that year he posted his first comment. "In late April, I went to see a dermatologist for my very mild, but persistent acne. He was an unethical old man who suggested accutane. He said that it was a very safe and popular drug with no serious side effects. I was never given a blood test. He never showed me the consent forms that he is required by law to make me sign. I was started on 80 mg per day. (I weigh around 190) He said that I could take the entire day's dose at once. When I picked up my prescription, the pharmacist conveniently forgot to give me the FDA required medication guide. When I picked up the medication, I was under the impression that accutane was an extremely safe drug. "I took it for 2 days. Then I got a bad headache and read about the side effects. I stopped right away. I thought that I was safe having only taken a few pills. However, about 5 days later, I got really depressed and couldn't sleep. My ears started to ring around this time, and a lot of hair around my hairline began to fall out. (The roots of these follicles were black, normally they're white.) My appetite went away around this time as well. A couple of days after this, my libido vanished and I lost virtually all sexual sensation...It has been over a month and a half since my very brief experience with accutane and most of these effects have not improved at all. (I sleep a little better as I am starting to get used to the ear ringing, but that is about it.) "Am I permanently affected from taking an acne medicine for 2 days?" More than 60 posts from Hans follow over the next five years. They show a man becoming increasingly obsessed with the drug Accutane and the effects he believed it was having on his body and his mind. He attributes a series of ailments, including depression, to the medication but the two that he claims most haunt him are a constant ringing in his ears and a loss of sexual sensation. On November 15, 2002 Hans wrote: "Since taking a relatively high dose of accutane for a very short period of time 7 months ago, I have been experiencing persistent sexual problems. I would describe it as a loss of libido and sexual sensation. I have lost virtually all interest in sex. When I do engage in sex or masturbation, the act is no longer pleasurable. I can get an erection and otherwise function normally. The pleasurable sensation is just gone." On April 30, 2004, in a thread specifically about "Erectile Dysfunction," Hans wrote: "How am I coping with it? Not particularly well. You take a drug in order to increase your chances of getting laid, and end up not being able to enjoy getting laid. (Getting an erection isn't that big of a problem - it's the near complete loss of sensation.) I guess you could try to enjoy pleasing the other person, and all that crap. But, still, this side effect is horrible..." As the years pass, Hans tries to become more familiar with both the science and the unsubstantiated claims made about Accutane. He consults with other doctors, who are not able to prove a link between his ailments and the drug he took briefly years before. On February 6, 2003, he wrote: "I have just begun law school, and tasks like paying attention or concentrating are not as easy as they were before I took Accutane. Perhaps I can use whatever legal knowledge I gain to take my revenge... I have nothing else to live for." (The list of side-effects that members of this forum attribute to Accutane is so long that it would be difficult to find a response from drugmaker Roche for every single one. In the past Roche has denied a connection between Accutane and the most serious conditions alleged. "It's our conclusion, along with the outside experts and the FDA, that there is no scientific basis that links Accutane with depression or suicide," a spokesperson told Reuters in 2002.) In a few of these posts, Hans seems to be formulating his rationalization for murder. According to Hans, Dr. Cornbleet is a villain who "deceived" him by knowingly prescribing a dangerous drug without providing any warning of the harmful effects associated with it. Hans also suggests a possible motive for this: Greed. On October 9, 2002 Hans speculated that Dr. Cornbleet was "desperate for patients, and, if I were to go on accutane, I would have to see him every two weeks for a check up." These two claims would seem to be inconsistent, however. Presumably Dr. Cornbleet did not tell Hans that Accutane was an "extremely safe" and "popular drug with no serious side effects" that nevertheless required an intense schedule of bi-monthly monitoring visits. And yet, especially compared to the standards of internet discussion forums, Peterson's writing is frequently clear and concise. At times he even grows impatient with his fellow posters, chastising them for throwing out statistics and claims without citations: "Is there anyone that can tell me where this information is actually published ? I admire the effort of the people that run this site, but you should really provide some adequate form of citation, so we know that these figures aren't just pulled out of the air...I don't doubt the truth of these statements, but in order for this website to be taken seriously, there needs to be some way of verifying the claims that are made on it." After a period of frequent activity in the spring and summer of 2004, Hans disappears from the forum for two years, returning on September 20, 2006, just four weeks before he would travel from New York to Chicago to murder Dr. Cornbleet. On that day he posts two links--one to a depression study reported on the BBC web site and another to a video on YouTube. On October 10, he posts the complete text of an article about Dopamine. The next post is February 7, 2007, more than three months after the murder: "I was deceived by my doctor almost 5 years ago into taking this drug (no consent form, no med guide, no warnings whatsoever). I took a rather high dose for two days. TWO DAYS!!! (albeit an 80 mg undivided dose) Life altering, presumably neurological, problems which I never experienced before have plagued me ever since. "I will never know again what it is like to pleasure a woman because I no longer have any sexual sensation - I will never again experience what silence is due to the constant ringing in my ears - I will never know who I would have become because of what this motherf**king drug has done to my mind. A drug which I should have never been prescribed...In at least some cases, such as mine, this drug just does its damage when its taken, or shortly thereafter, and that's it. No real hope of recovery, doctors are useless, the damage is done. "Doubt my problems and their connection to Accutane all you want - I know I wouldn't believe a word of it if I had never taken the drug and someone told me the story I have told above. The truth is, I'm a rational non-hypochondriac who still can't believe how his life has been changed by this drug." He posted four more times before he turned himself in to St. Martin police in August. On July 2, his second-to-last post he wrote: "Justice will not be found through the legal system. There is no way to objectively verify Accutane-induced permanent neurological problems. Even if there were, it would be near impossible to legally prove causation. Even then, statutes of limitation would have run... If and when the **** ever does hit the fan they will just point out how strenuously they claimed their ignorance about permanent problems. "Would legal justice even be justice, anyway? The people who have profitted from Roche's deception won't be personally brought to justice -- they will be shielded from personal liability... Roche's stock might drop, that's about it, it still would have been rational for those ***holes to deceive regarding Accutane in the first place: its profits over the years have been more than enough. The corrupt FDA, as a gov't institution, can't be held liable.... "There is no foreseeable retributive action in the legal system which would make their fraud regarding Accutane a mistake. Their decisions were economically rational and they know it. Would taking some of their money even be justice? Their lives would go on, just with a little less money. Our lives will never be the same. "If you seek real justice, it will not come through the legal system -- they know this, that's why they continue to deceive and play ignorant. It is the financially rational thing to do..." Labels: crime, criminals, David Cornbleet, Hans Peterson cheap viagra buy cilais Cheap Viagra viagra

Tags: accutane, hans, drug, effect, day