In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.


http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04154411579195
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2010.


There is a news article on page A8 of the same issue:

"Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism",

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04121243736442
0.html

Access is gratis today.


Joe Gwinn

"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

Heh, I guess yer Wife don't work in a hospital..... hospital workers avoid
this stuff like the plague.

Good, honest Docs are caught between a rock and hard place -- how do you
tell yer patients that yer profession is fulla**** (and thimerosal), and
still be able to make a living?

And I'm not even taking sides on the vaccine issue, really, altho I wouldn't
take them myself. In principle, a valid concept, in practice, very sloppy
chemistry.

The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... need I cite countless example after example
after example? Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?

So, need you take more than one guess at WHY Lancet printed a retraction?
Proly someone got fired for printing the original article to begin with.



http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04154411579195
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2010.


There is a news article on page A8 of the same issue:

"Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism",

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04121243736442
0.html

Access is gratis today.

Yeah, proly sponsored by the AMA....
--
EA









Joe Gwinn

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
Another good link, but slightly different topic.

http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php

Pete

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

Speaking of interesting things coming from the UK, the BBC is running a
great radio series about people voting against their own interests, called
"Turkeys Voting for Christmas." The first one is about populist voters in
the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see clearly what's going on here,
like de Toqueville's _Democracy in America_:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm

--
Ed Huntress

"Existential Angst" wrote in message
...
"Joseph Gwinn" wrote in message
...
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

Heh, I guess yer Wife don't work in a hospital..... hospital workers
avoid this stuff like the plague.

Good, honest Docs are caught between a rock and hard place -- how do you
tell yer patients that yer profession is fulla**** (and thimerosal), and
still be able to make a living?

And I'm not even taking sides on the vaccine issue, really, altho I
wouldn't take them myself. In principle, a valid concept, in practice,
very sloppy chemistry.

The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... need I cite countless example after example
after example? Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?

So, need you take more than one guess at WHY Lancet printed a retraction?
Proly someone got fired for printing the original article to begin with.



and agri-business w/ genetically modified products (animal/vegetable). a
massive open uncontrolled experiment. madness driven by greed.

b.w.

On Feb 3, 3:34*pm, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

Heh, cute, Avogadro's number.....

I'm not a big fan of the shennanigans that go on in homeopathy (and
chiropractic), but you should know that homeopathy is at least rooted in
science, and reputable chiropractic is a god-sent therapy.


Hormones, PGs, et al *have powerful effects in concentrations as low as
10^-12 molar, poss. even 10^-13 -- which are dilutions that are hard to even
comprehend. *True, not 10^-23, but even 10^-7 *(1 part per 10,000,000) is
homeopathic, imo.

So homeopathic tinctures could indeed have legitimate and meaningful
effects.
I think the real problem is that there are just too many variables to really
know what's what.

And let's put it another way:

Whatever fraud you can cite and document in various alternative health
modalities -- and I'm sure these are legion -- you can cite 100 times that
in Big Med and Big Pharm, fueled by Big Lobbyists in Big Corrupt Congress..
With the dollar value of the hustles in Big Med/Big Pharm dwarfing that of
alternative medicine by factors of 1,000,000s. *Yes indeedy, FACTORS of
millions.


EA


Okay you understand Avogadro'sl number. So what do you think about a
medicine that is diluted to one part to 100^200? See below.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like
symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its
"active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a
freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant
solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly
diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of
the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its
concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400
zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in
the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes).
In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that
only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had
total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky
bird "the $20-million duck."

I think that Homopathic medicines ought to be held to the same
standards as any other medicine. That is they would have to prove
that it has some effect.

Dan

On Feb 3, 10:18*am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:
...
Heh, I guess yer Wife don't work in a hospital..... *hospital workers avoid
this stuff like the plague.
...
EA

The same way they avoid weight control advice?

On Feb 3, 11:49*am, " wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:34*pm, "Existential Angst"
wrote:



Heh, cute, Avogadro's number.....

I'm not a big fan of the shennanigans that go on in homeopathy (and
chiropractic), but you should know that homeopathy is at least rooted in
science, and reputable chiropractic is a god-sent therapy.

Hormones, PGs, et al *have powerful effects in concentrations as low as
10^-12 molar, poss. even 10^-13 -- which are dilutions that are hard to even
comprehend. *True, not 10^-23, but even 10^-7 *(1 part per 10,000,000) is
homeopathic, imo.

So homeopathic tinctures could indeed have legitimate and meaningful
effects.
I think the real problem is that there are just too many variables to really
know what's what.

And let's put it another way:

Whatever fraud you can cite and document in various alternative health
modalities -- and I'm sure these are legion -- you can cite 100 times that
in Big Med and Big Pharm, fueled by Big Lobbyists in Big Corrupt Congress.
With the dollar value of the hustles in Big Med/Big Pharm dwarfing that of
alternative medicine by factors of 1,000,000s. *Yes indeedy, FACTORS of
millions.

EA

Okay you understand Avogadro'sl number. *So what do you think about a
medicine that is diluted to one part to 100^200? *See below.

Oscillococcinum, a 200C product "for the relief of colds and flu-like
symptoms," involves "dilutions" that are even more far-fetched. Its
"active ingredient" is prepared by incubating small amounts of a
freshly killed duck's liver and heart for 40 days. The resultant
solution is then filtered, freeze-dried, rehydrated, repeatedly
diluted, and impregnated into sugar granules. If a single molecule of
the duck's heart or liver were to survive the dilution, its
concentration would be 1 in 100200. This huge number, which has 400
zeroes, is vastly greater than the estimated number of molecules in
the universe (about one googol, which is a 1 followed by 100 zeroes).
In its February 17, 1997, issue, U.S. News & World Report noted that
only one duck per year is needed to manufacture the product, which had
total sales of $20 million in 1996. The magazine dubbed that unlucky
bird "the $20-million duck."

I think that Homopathic medicines ought to be held to the same
standards as any other medicine. *That is they would have to prove
that it has some effect.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Homeopathy may not be rooted in science, but seems to be firmly rooted
in econmics 101!


Dave

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:28:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
Another good link, but slightly different topic.

http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php

Pete

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

Speaking of interesting things coming from the UK, the BBC is running a
great radio series about people voting against their own interests, called
"Turkeys Voting for Christmas." The first one is about populist voters in
the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see clearly what's going on here,
like de Toqueville's _Democracy in America_:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
=========
There is a reason why "I'm from the gumment and I'm here to hep
you" is the punch line in so many jokes.

It should be clear that granting or ceding "government" the right
to decide anything, without also holding the individuals actually
making the decisions civilly and criminally accountable, for the
outcomes of their actions is a sure recipe for disaster and
continual meddling.

In many of these cases we are seeing a difference in taste, and
in other cases a difference in priorities. In other cases we are
seeing simple direct and overt power grabs.

Experience has shown in many cases the most intelligent course of
individual action is to determine what the governmental
bureaucrats, functionaries and apparatchiks want you to do and
then do the exact opposite. The current economy is a case in
point. If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?



Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

In article , " wrote:

I think that Homopathic medicines ought to be held to the same
standards as any other medicine.

Oh, I agree.

That is they would have to prove that it has some effect.

Homeopathic "medicines" would pass that standard easily.

Fortunately, that's not the standard that's used to assess the effectiveness
of a medicine. This is: in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, it needs
to be more effective _than_the_placebo_ by a statistically significant margin.

Homeopathy works because placebos work.

On Feb 3, 8:24*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. *So, get your shots. *And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04154411579195
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2010.

There is a news article on page A8 of the same issue:

"Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism",

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04121243736442
0.html

Access is gratis today.

Joe Gwinn

I strongly agree.

TMT

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:28:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:




Experience has shown in many cases the most intelligent course of
individual action is to determine what the governmental
bureaucrats, functionaries and apparatchiks want you to do and
then do the exact opposite. The current economy is a case in
point. If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services industry
avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world ran it's neck
into.


--
John R. Carroll

"F. George McDuffee" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:28:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
Another good link, but slightly different topic.

http://www.1023.org.uk/the-1023-overdose-event.php

Pete

Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. So, get your shots. And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

Speaking of interesting things coming from the UK, the BBC is running a
great radio series about people voting against their own interests, called
"Turkeys Voting for Christmas." The first one is about populist voters in
the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see clearly what's going on
here,
like de Toqueville's _Democracy in America_:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm
=========
There is a reason why "I'm from the gumment and I'm here to hep
you" is the punch line in so many jokes.

It should be clear that granting or ceding "government" the right
to decide anything, without also holding the individuals actually
making the decisions civilly and criminally accountable, for the
outcomes of their actions is a sure recipe for disaster and
continual meddling.

In many of these cases we are seeing a difference in taste, and
in other cases a difference in priorities. In other cases we are
seeing simple direct and overt power grabs.

Experience has shown in many cases the most intelligent course of
individual action is to determine what the governmental
bureaucrats, functionaries and apparatchiks want you to do and
then do the exact opposite. The current economy is a case in
point. If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?



Unka George (George McDuffee)

If you haven't read it before, it's a good time to read "The Paranoid Style
in American Politics," by Richard Hofstadter. It was published in 1964, and
it rings like a bell today:

http://karws.gso.uri.edu/jfk/conspir...oid_style.html

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 10:28:51 -0500, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:




Experience has shown in many cases the most intelligent course of
individual action is to determine what the governmental
bureaucrats, functionaries and apparatchiks want you to do and
then do the exact opposite. The current economy is a case in
point. If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

Uh, just to be sure, you're quoting Unka' George, not me. I haven't bought
into the Paranoid Style. g

--
Ed Huntress


You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry
avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world ran it's neck
into.


--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...


Uh, just to be sure, you're quoting Unka' George, not me. I haven't
bought into the Paranoid Style. g


Yeah, that was strange.
Quote Fix usually gets the attributes right but this is twice now today that
it's messed them up.


--
John R. Carroll

On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services industry
avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world ran it's neck
into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....


Unka George (George McDuffee)
...............................
The past is a foreign country;
they do things differently there.
L. P. Hartley (1895-1972), British author.
The Go-Between, Prologue (1953).

On Feb 3, 10:18*am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... *need I cite countless example after example
after example? *Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. *Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?

No thanks, I've already got it. And I can assure you, it is no joke.
Now, the interesting thing is that I got RLS as a side effect from
another "safe" drug.

If you want to talk about drugs in search of diseases, take a look at
statins. They were looking for a drug to lower blood pressure. They
found that statins lower cholesterol. They knew that people with high
cholesterol levels had lower life expectancy, so they marketed the
hell out of this stuff. As far as I know, there has not been a single
scientific study that shows that lowering cholesterol levels by taking
statin drugs increases life expectancy. But they sell this stuff by
the boat load.

I'm trusting that Ed will correct me if I'm wrong about the statin
studies :-)

F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that order to
get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

--
John R. Carroll

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 10:18 am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:

The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... need I cite countless example after example
after example? Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?

No thanks, I've already got it. And I can assure you, it is no joke.
Now, the interesting thing is that I got RLS as a side effect from
another "safe" drug.

If you want to talk about drugs in search of diseases, take a look at
statins. They were looking for a drug to lower blood pressure. They
found that statins lower cholesterol. They knew that people with high
cholesterol levels had lower life expectancy, so they marketed the
hell out of this stuff. As far as I know, there has not been a single
scientific study that shows that lowering cholesterol levels by taking
statin drugs increases life expectancy. But they sell this stuff by
the boat load.

I'm trusting that Ed will correct me if I'm wrong about the statin
studies :-)

I've put that stuff out of my mind. I just take the suckers and hope I don't
keel over. So far, so good. g

It would be a ten-minute research job on PubMed, if you're bored today. All
you need for those efficacy tests is the abstract.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that order to
get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that Toyota
drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad as hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess with
sales figures and the valuation of my equity.


--
John R. Carroll

"Pete Snell" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:

Speaking of interesting things coming from the UK, the BBC is running a
great radio series about people voting against their own interests,
called "Turkeys Voting for Christmas." The first one is about populist
voters in the US. Sometimes it takes an outsider to see clearly what's
going on here, like de Toqueville's _Democracy in America_:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8474611.stm


Thanks for that Ed. Looks very interesting.

Pete

You're welcome, Pete. BTW, if you want to hear the radio show (15 min.),
which adds a bit to the article, you have two hours (as of roughly 2:22 PM
EST) to hear it, before they replace it with Episode 2:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00qgyfc

--
Ed Huntress

John R. Carroll wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of
the world ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess
with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

Hahahahahaha......

"Shares of Toyota rebounded slightly following LaHood's clarification, but
they are still trading down about 5 percent, well below the overall market
performance. "


--
John R. Carroll

On Feb 3, 11:47*am, rangerssuck wrote:
On Feb 3, 10:18*am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:



The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... *need I cite countless example after example
after example? *Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. *Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?

No thanks, I've already got it. And I can assure you, it is no joke.
Now, the interesting thing is that I got RLS as a side effect from
another "safe" drug.

If you want to talk about drugs in search of diseases, take a look at
statins. They were looking for a drug to lower blood pressure. They
found that statins lower cholesterol. They knew that people with high
cholesterol levels had lower life expectancy, so they marketed the
hell out of this stuff. As far as I know, there has not been a single
scientific study that shows that lowering cholesterol levels by taking
statin drugs increases life expectancy. But they sell this stuff by
the boat load.

I'm trusting that Ed will correct me if I'm wrong about the statin
studies :-)

I seem to remember one being released last year...I am sure it is out
on Google if you look.

TMT

On Feb 3, 12:50*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
m...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - *Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) *the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. *How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? *Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that Toyota
drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad as hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess with
sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well John...it is the truth.

Why would anyone knowingly drive a death trap?

This is also the reason why management needs to listen to their
engineering staff...the company knew they had a serious problem and
continued to sell a defective product.

Finally this is the reason for stock holders to hang the management by
their gonads...they did this to you while merrily pocketing their
bonuses.

TMT

TMT

On Feb 3, 11:17*am, (Doug Miller) wrote:
In article , " wrote:

I think that Homopathic medicines ought to be held to the same
standards as any other medicine.

Oh, I agree.

That is they would have to prove that it has some effect.

Homeopathic "medicines" would pass that standard easily.

Fortunately, that's not the standard that's used to assess the effectiveness
of a medicine. This is: in a placebo-controlled, double-blind study, it needs
to be more effective _than_the_placebo_ by a statistically significant margin.

Homeopathy works because placebos work.

Exactly.

And much of mainstream medicine works for the same reason.

TMT

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:50 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well John...it is the truth.

There are a lot of "truths" that the government doesn't speak in order not
to distort the market.
The difference here is that GM and Chrysler are Uncle Sam Inc.
They provide fewer jobs combined in America that Toyota.

This is really the definition of self dealing and a great example, from the
other side of the looking glass, of moral hazard.
LaHood should be replaced ASAP. He's obviously either to stupid or
insufficiently self aware to serve in any capacity.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that Toyota
drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad as
hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess with
sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he pulled
back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth shut
about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company? It's too bad that LaHood overstated
the case, because I'd like to see that question played out in the Murdoch
Press versus the mainstream.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest
of the world ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for
the Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he
pulled back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth
shut about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company?

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters Ed.
Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's statement
that we were going to try, convict, and then execute criminal defendants.
He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.
They make a mockery of the purpose of bringing the Gitmo detainees to US
soil for their day in court and I thought that was the entire reason the
administration wanted to proceed that way in the beginning.
Idiots......

--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial
services industry avoided ( by direction ) the noose the rest
of the world ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for
the Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he
pulled back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth
shut about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company?

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters Ed.
Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's statement
that we were going to try, convict, and then execute criminal defendants.
He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters argue
for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in the jury box.


Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

They make a mockery of the purpose of bringing the Gitmo detainees to US
soil for their day in court and I thought that was the entire reason the
administration wanted to proceed that way in the beginning.
Idiots......

--
John R. Carroll

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters
Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's
statement that we were going to try, convict, and then execute
criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
the jury box.

Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a practical
matter Ed.
Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort of
thing.
You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.
Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us all.




Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

Death penalty cases have gone to life sentence maximums more than once.
I can't cite a case for you.


--
John R. Carroll

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these matters
Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was Obama/Holder's
statement that we were going to try, convict, and then execute
criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
the jury box.

Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a
practical
matter Ed.

What did Obama say? I thought it was Holder. I must have missed something.


Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort of
thing.
You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.

Well, if Obama said something prejudicial, that's different. But Holder is
just the government's chief prosecutor.


Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us all.

Why not? He probably doesn't know anything about it, so it's his kind of
topic. g





Such statements aren't without precedent but they are extremely ill
advised,
prejudicial, and cause for a mistrial.

If it was a judge saying that, I'd agree with you.

Death penalty cases have gone to life sentence maximums more than once.
I can't cite a case for you.


--
John R. Carroll

On Feb 3, 3:46*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in messagenews:WL2dnYWfbalBWPTWnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@gigan ews.com...





Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
om...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip
If the government is not exercising many of its
functions, responsibilities and duties now, why would any sane
person let them acquire additional power and responsibility?

Because it's been extremely succesful in - - - - *Canada.

You must have noticed that their own banking and financial services
industry avoided ( by direction ) *the noose the rest of the world
ran it's neck into.
snip
=========
A good argument for outsourcing. *How much do you think Canada
would charge to run the US? *Nothing else seems to have
worked....

I doubt that you could wrap a big enough ball of cash around that
order to get them interested.
LOL

I wish I'd saved the link to a piece Christia Freeland wrote for the
Financial Times recently.
You might have seen it anyway.

It's he

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/db2b340a-0...44feabdc0.html

Worth reading, IMO.

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that Toyota
drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad as
hell
if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to mess with
sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

He was a little over the top, but, as you mention in another post, he pulled
back from that one.

It's an interesting question: Should the government keep its mouth shut
about a safety problem in order to preserve the profitability of
stockholders at some particular company? It's too bad that LaHood overstated
the case, because I'd like to see that question played out in the Murdoch
Press versus the mainstream.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Considering that we have MILLIONS of cars out there RIGHT NOW on the
roads that can become a deadly missile AT ANY TIME I think the warning
was warranted.

If any of us have family members killed by this defect, their opinons
will change.

TMT

On Feb 3, 3:46*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:50 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews. com...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well John...it is the truth.

There are a lot of "truths" that the government doesn't speak in order not
to distort the market.
The difference here is that GM and Chrysler are Uncle Sam Inc.
They provide fewer jobs combined in America that Toyota.

This is really the definition of self dealing and a great example, from the
other side of the looking glass, of moral hazard.
LaHood should be replaced ASAP. He's obviously either to stupid or
insufficiently self aware to serve in any capacity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Uncle Sam Inc. is the taxpayer..you.

There is no conflict of interest.

If you believe there is, I encourage you to buy stocks of GM and
Chrysler at their low current prices.

If your theory is correct, you will die a rich man.

TMT

Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

The government ordinarily exercises great restraint in these
matters Ed. Something else disturbing in the weekend news was
Obama/Holder's statement that we were going to try, convict, and
then execute criminal defendants. He's contaminated the entire US
jury pool. WTF?

Free speech. g I don't think that jury pools are contaminated by a
statement by a prosecutor, no matter how high up he is. Prosecuters
argue for execution right in their faces, while they're sitting in
the jury box.

Presidents of the Unted States don't actually have that right as a
practical
matter Ed.

What did Obama say?

He was answering a reporters question in, I believe, an interview and he
said we were going to try, convict and execute the guy that was going to be
moved to New York for trial. I saw the video but can't remember where. I
think either "Face the Nation" or "This Week"
He said it just like that.
He can't do that.


I thought it was Holder. I must have missed
something.


Judges grant changes of venue every day because of exactly this sort
of thing.
You know all of this so I'll assume you are jerking my chain.

Well, if Obama said something prejudicial, that's different.

He did, and now that I'm thinking about it, George Will was the one that
made the point about how prejudicial it was and would end up guaranteeing a
predisposed jury pool.

But
Holder is just the government's chief prosecutor.


Maybe Tom Gardner will jump in with an inane burst of polemic for us
all.

Why not? He probably doesn't know anything about it, so it's his kind
of topic. g

LOL
The glove DO fit G


--
John R. Carroll

On Feb 3, 12:55*pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Feb 3, 10:18 am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:







The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... need I cite countless example after example
after example? Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?
No thanks, I've already got it. And I can assure you, it is no joke.
Now, the interesting thing is that I got RLS as a side effect from
another "safe" drug.

If you want to talk about drugs in search of diseases, take a look at
statins. They were looking for a drug to lower blood pressure. They
found that statins lower cholesterol. They knew that people with high
cholesterol levels had lower life expectancy, so they marketed the
hell out of this stuff. As far as I know, there has not been a single
scientific study that shows that lowering cholesterol levels by taking
statin drugs increases life expectancy. But they sell this stuff by
the boat load.

I'm trusting that Ed will correct me if I'm wrong about the statin
studies :-)

I've put that stuff out of my mind. I just take the suckers and hope I don't
keel over. So far, so good. g

It would be a ten-minute research job on PubMed, if you're bored today. All
you need for those efficacy tests is the abstract.

--
Ed Huntress

OK, I stand somewhat corrected, though didn't this whole thread start
with not trusting Lancet articles? And, when you start looking at the
side effects... well, it's better to just maybe put it out of your
mind and hope that you don't keel over.
---
Title:Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment:
prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14
randomised trials of statins.
The Lancet
366.9493 (Oct 8, 2005): p1267(12). (7298 words)

Abstract:

Background Results of previous randomised trials have shown that
interventions that lower LDL cholesterol concentrations can
significantly reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and
other major vascular events in a wide range of individuals. But each
separate trial has limited power to assess particular outcomes or
particular categories of participant.

Methods A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 individuals in
14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were
obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L
reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Findings During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14 348
individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean
LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77
mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional
reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL
cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p0.0001). This
reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85;
p0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular
mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95,
0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial
infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p0.0001), in the need
for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p0.0001), in fatal
or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p0.0001), and, combining these,
of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p0.0001).
The proportional reduction in major vascular events differed
significantly (p0.0001) according to the absolute reduction in LDL
cholesterol achieved, but not otherwise. These benefits were
significant within the first year, but were greater in subsequent
years. Taking all years together, the overall reduction of about one
fifth per mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction translated into 48 (95% CI
39-57) fewer participants having major vascular events per 1000 among
those with pre-existing CHD at baseline, compared with 25 09-31) per
1000 among participants with no such history. There was no evidence
that statins increased the incidence of cancer overall (1.00,
0.95-1.06; p=0.9) or at any particular site.

Interpretation Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence
of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by
about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely
irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting
characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an
individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute
reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the
need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL
cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of
major vascular event.


Source Citation
"Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective
meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14 randomised trials
of statins." The Lancet 366.9493 (2005): 1267+. Health Reference
Center Academic. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/
start.do?prodId=HRCA&userGroupName=bergen_remote.

Gale Document Number:A137547733

"rangerssuck" wrote in message
...
On Feb 3, 12:55 pm, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"rangerssuck" wrote in message

...
On Feb 3, 10:18 am, "Existential Angst"
wrote:







The bigger point is, the world population is but a cageful of guinea
pigs
for Big Med and Big Pharm... need I cite countless example after example
after example? Or the invention of disease just to sell drugs. Restless
Leg Syndrome, inyone?
No thanks, I've already got it. And I can assure you, it is no joke.
Now, the interesting thing is that I got RLS as a side effect from
another "safe" drug.

If you want to talk about drugs in search of diseases, take a look at
statins. They were looking for a drug to lower blood pressure. They
found that statins lower cholesterol. They knew that people with high
cholesterol levels had lower life expectancy, so they marketed the
hell out of this stuff. As far as I know, there has not been a single
scientific study that shows that lowering cholesterol levels by taking
statin drugs increases life expectancy. But they sell this stuff by
the boat load.

I'm trusting that Ed will correct me if I'm wrong about the statin
studies :-)

I've put that stuff out of my mind. I just take the suckers and hope I
don't
keel over. So far, so good. g

It would be a ten-minute research job on PubMed, if you're bored today.
All
you need for those efficacy tests is the abstract.

--
Ed Huntress

OK, I stand somewhat corrected, though didn't this whole thread start
with not trusting Lancet articles?

'Don't know. I didn't read the whole thread. But FWIW, *I* don't trust
Lancet articles. g

They're too enamored of speculative research. If BMJ, JAMA, or NEJM doesn't
pick it up within a few months, I tend to be wary of Lancet.

And, when you start looking at the
side effects... well, it's better to just maybe put it out of your
mind and hope that you don't keel over.

I take five pills and pump insulin into myself every day. I have other
things to think about when it comes to medical treatment. Statins don't
bother me. I laugh at statins. d8-)

---
Title:Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment:
prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14
randomised trials of statins.
The Lancet
366.9493 (Oct 8, 2005): p1267(12). (7298 words)

Abstract:

Background Results of previous randomised trials have shown that
interventions that lower LDL cholesterol concentrations can
significantly reduce the incidence of coronary heart disease (CHD) and
other major vascular events in a wide range of individuals. But each
separate trial has limited power to assess particular outcomes or
particular categories of participant.

Methods A prospective meta-analysis of data from 90 056 individuals in
14 randomised trials of statins was done. Weighted estimates were
obtained of effects on different clinical outcomes per 1.0 mmol/L
reduction in LDL cholesterol.

Findings During a mean of 5 years, there were 8186 deaths, 14 348
individuals had major vascular events, and 5103 developed cancer. Mean
LDL cholesterol differences at 1 year ranged from 0.35 mmol/L to 1.77
mmol/L (mean 1.09) in these trials. There was a 12% proportional
reduction in all-cause mortality per mmol/L reduction in LDL
cholesterol (rate ratio [RR] 0.88, 95% CI 0.84-0.91; p0.0001). This
reflected a 19% reduction in coronary mortality (0.81, 0.76-0.85;
p0.0001), and non-significant reductions in non-coronary vascular
mortality (0.93, 0.83-1.03; p=0.2) and non-vascular mortality (0.95,
0.90-1.01; p=0.1). There were corresponding reductions in myocardial
infarction or coronary death (0.77, 0.74-0.80; p0.0001), in the need
for coronary revascularisation (0.76, 0.73-0.80; p0.0001), in fatal
or non-fatal stroke (0.83, 0.78-0.88; p0.0001), and, combining these,
of 21% in any such major vascular event (0.79, 0.77-0.81; p0.0001).
The proportional reduction in major vascular events differed
significantly (p0.0001) according to the absolute reduction in LDL
cholesterol achieved, but not otherwise. These benefits were
significant within the first year, but were greater in subsequent
years. Taking all years together, the overall reduction of about one
fifth per mmol/L LDL cholesterol reduction translated into 48 (95% CI
39-57) fewer participants having major vascular events per 1000 among
those with pre-existing CHD at baseline, compared with 25 09-31) per
1000 among participants with no such history. There was no evidence
that statins increased the incidence of cancer overall (1.00,
0.95-1.06; p=0.9) or at any particular site.

Interpretation Statin therapy can safely reduce the 5-year incidence
of major coronary events, coronary revascularisation, and stroke by
about one fifth per mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, largely
irrespective of the initial lipid profile or other presenting
characteristics. The absolute benefit relates chiefly to an
individual's absolute risk of such events and to the absolute
reduction in LDL cholesterol achieved. These findings reinforce the
need to consider prolonged statin treatment with substantial LDL
cholesterol reductions in all patients at high risk of any type of
major vascular event.


Source Citation
"Efficacy and safety of cholesterol-lowering treatment: prospective
meta-analysis of data from 90 056 participants in 14 randomised trials
of statins." The Lancet 366.9493 (2005): 1267+. Health Reference
Center Academic. Web. 3 Feb. 2010. http://find.galegroup.com/gtx/
start.do?prodId=HRCA&userGroupName=bergen_remote.

Gale Document Number:A137547733

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:46 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:50 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well John...it is the truth.

There are a lot of "truths" that the government doesn't speak in
order not to distort the market.
The difference here is that GM and Chrysler are Uncle Sam Inc.
They provide fewer jobs combined in America that Toyota.

This is really the definition of self dealing and a great example,
from the other side of the looking glass, of moral hazard.
LaHood should be replaced ASAP. He's obviously either to stupid or
insufficiently self aware to serve in any capacity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Uncle Sam Inc. is the taxpayer..you.

There is no conflict of interest.

You don't see the conflict when a government regulatory agency that owns two
competitors indicates that it's unsafe to use the product of a third party
thet it competes with?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
That is the very definition of conflict of interest. Legislators have been
removed from office for less.


--
John R. Carroll

In article
,
Too_Many_Tools wrote:

On Feb 3, 8:24*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. *So, get your shots. *And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04154411579195
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2010.

There is a news article on page A8 of the same issue:

"Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism",

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04121243736442
0.html

Access is gratis today.

Joe Gwinn

I strongly agree.

One thing about the vaccine scare versus other scares is that the other
scares cost only money, while the vaccine scare has been killing people,
especially children.

It's behind a paywall, but some years ago The New England Journal of
Medicine published an article from The Institute of Medicine that
analyzed all evidence then available and found no connection between
vaccines (with or without mercury) and autism.

Out of the 44 replies in this thread, only a handful were on vaccines
and autism.

Joe Gwinn

On Feb 3, 5:48*pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 3:46 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 12:50 pm, "John R. Carroll" wrote:
Ed Huntress wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
news:dJKdnYSMoO6gKvTWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganew s.com...
F. George McDuffee wrote:
On Wed, 3 Feb 2010 09:20:03 -0800, "John R. Carroll"
wrote:
snip

Off the subject completely but LaHood made a statement today that
Toyota drivers ought to stop driving their cars until they can be
fixed.
How's that for poking your biggest competitor right in the eye!
I wonder if these turkey's EVER think before they speak. I'd be mad
as hell if I were a Toyota shareholder right about now.
My tax payments would have just enabled one of my competitors to
mess with sales figures and the valuation of my equity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well John...it is the truth.

There are a lot of "truths" that the government doesn't speak in
order not to distort the market.
The difference here is that GM and Chrysler are Uncle Sam Inc.
They provide fewer jobs combined in America that Toyota.

This is really the definition of self dealing and a great example,
from the other side of the looking glass, of moral hazard.
LaHood should be replaced ASAP. He's obviously either to stupid or
insufficiently self aware to serve in any capacity.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

And Uncle Sam Inc. is the taxpayer..you.

There is no conflict of interest.

You don't see the conflict when a government regulatory agency that owns two
competitors indicates that it's unsafe to use the product of a third party
thet it competes with?

HAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA.
That is the very definition of conflict of interest. Legislators have been
removed from office for less.

--
John R. Carroll- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Yes...I see the "possible" conflict of interest...and I understand
your argument.

But John...it is TRUE.

If this defect were applied to aircraft, entire fleets would be
grounded.

This recall is not like others.

This is a defect that can and has killed.

And you have millions of affected cars on the road each day...with the
defect waiting to happen again.

If your family was killed tomorrow by an affected car, would you still
have the same opinion?

Since you sound like a Toyota stockholder, I would be sharpening up
your pitchfork for their management.

TMT

On Feb 3, 8:38*pm, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In article
,





*Too_Many_Tools wrote:
On Feb 3, 8:24*am, Joseph Gwinn wrote:
In short, vaccines do not cause autism. *So, get your shots. *And, more
to the point, make sure your kids get their shots.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04154411579195
2.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_AboveLEFTTop

The Wall Street Journal, 3 February 2010.

There is a news article on page A8 of the same issue:

"Lancet Retracts Study Tying Vaccine to Autism",

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...04121243736442
0.html

Access is gratis today.

Joe Gwinn

I strongly agree.

One thing about the vaccine scare versus other scares is that the other
scares cost only money, while the vaccine scare has been killing people,
especially children.

It's behind a paywall, but some years ago The New England Journal of
Medicine published an article from The Institute of Medicine that
analyzed all evidence then available and found no connection between
vaccines (with or without mercury) and autism.

Out of the 44 replies in this thread, only a handful were on vaccines
and autism.

Joe Gwinn- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I agree with you...it is an important issue.

My other comments were not meant to distract from its importance.

TMT