December 21, 2004
Aleve Latest Drug to Draw Scrutiny
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

WASHINGTON (AP) -- An Alzheimer's disease prevention trial was
suspended after researchers said there were more heart attacks and
strokes among patients taking naproxen, an over-the-counter pain
reliever in use for 28 years and commonly known under the brand name
Aleve.

The study, involving some 2,500 patients, was to test whether naproxen
or Celebrex, both pain relievers, could reduce the risk of Alzheimer's
disease among healthy elderly patients who were at an increased risk
of the disease.

Officials at the National Institutes of Health said the study was
suspended after three years when it was found that patients taking
naproxen had a 50 percent greater incidence of cardiovascular events
-- heart attack or stroke -- than patients taking placebo.

Another factor, officials said, was the announcement last week that
advertising for Celebrex was being halted after a study found that
high doses of the drug were associated with an increase in heart
attack risk. Preliminary data from the Alzheimer's study, however, did
not indicate an increased risk for heart attack or stroke for
Celebrex, officials said.

Lester Crawford, acting commissioner of the Food and Drug
Administration, acknowledged Tuesday that the conflicting studies are
confusing and call for continued evaluation. For now, he recommended
following the dosage recommendations for the drugs.

``Any drug taken long enough and at high enough dosage can cause some
difficulty,'' Crawford said on NBC's ``Today.''

``It would be premature to say what we we're going to do with either
one of these drugs, Celebrex or Aleve,'' he said. ``However, we will
keep all regulator options open and make some determinations as
quickly as possible based on the data.''

Celebrex, a prescription drug, and naproxen are both commonly used to
treat the joint pain of arthritis. Naproxen has been approved for
sale, first as a prescription and then as an over-the-counter drug,
since 1976. Celebrex is in the same class -- COX2 enzyme inhibitors --
as Vioxx, an arthritis drug recently taken off the market by its
manufacturer after it was linked to an increase in heart attack and
stroke.

Officials acknowledged that the implications for the continued use of
naproxen are not clear and will require further study.

Dr. Sandra Kweder of the FDA said the NIH study is the first to show
that naproxen might increase the risk of heart attack or stroke and
that the findings are ``confusing.'' No immediate action, however, is
expected toward naproxen, she said.

``We are not contemplating any specific regulatory action over the
next few days,'' Kweder said. ``We will be working with the NIH to try
to understand the data better and determine what will be appropriate
from there.''

Patients who routinely take naproxen should follow the drug package
instructions carefully, Kweder said, including the directions to not
take it for more than 10 days, and to consult a doctor if pain
persists.

Efforts to obtain reaction Monday night produced no answers at phone
numbers for Bayer Healthcare, the maker of Aleve.

In the earlier studies of the COX2 drugs, an increase in
cardiovascular events was noted only after a long-term use of the
medications.

The Alzheimer's disease study was being conducted by the National
Institute on Aging, an arm of the NIH. It called for 2,500 patients
aged 70 or older and who had a family history of Alzheimer's, to take
either Celebrex, naproxen or a placebo.

The group was divided and each division, or arm, was assigned to
receive one of the drugs or placebo. The drugs were blinded, which
means the patients did not know which medication they were taking, or
if they were taking a placebo.

The goal was to determine if the pain-relieving drugs lowered the risk
of developing Alzheimer's disease. The study started three years ago
and was to continue for a few more years. Officials said the patients
in the study will be monitored for developing Alzheimer's or cognitive
decline, but will not be given the test drugs.

Dr. Elias A. Zerhouni, the director of the National Institutes of
Health, said the study linking heart attack to Celebrex last week was
a major factor in deciding to suspend the Alzheimer's study.

He said there was a question whether patients in the study would
continue to take their medicine since they knew they might be taking
Celebrex.

Suspending the study, Zerhouni said, ``is the prudent thing to do.''

John Breitner of the Veterans Affairs medical facility in Seattle and
the University of Washington, an investigator in the trial, said only
preliminary data is available. But he said it suggests that among the
2,500 patients in the study, about 70 suffered stroke or heart attack.
There were 23 deaths. There were 50 percent more of the cardiovascular
events among patients taking naproxen than among those taking placebo,
he said.

^--

On the Net:

National Institutes of Health: http://www.nih.gov

JOE wrote:
One new option is Limbrel.

http://www.mcramerican.com/limbrel.htm

Would suggest you ask your doctor about it.

Hope the above information helps you.

Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A
Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote
in article <1103647182.556648.176890@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups .com>:

[Begin]
LIMBRELTM

flavocoxid (U.S. patents pending) capsules by oral administration

An ethical medical food product to be used under physician supervision
for the clinical dietary management of osteoarthritis (OA), including
associated inflammation.
[End]
http://intetlab.com/product_descript...roduct=limbrel

[Begin]
(4) Nurse practitioners with prescriptive authority are authorized to
prescribe:
(a) All over the counter drugs;
(b) Appliances and devices.
(5) Nurse practitioners are authorized to prescribe the following drugs
as listed in Drug Facts and Comparisons dated October 2004:
(a) Nutrients and Nutritional Agents - all drugs except Flavocoxid
(Limbrel);
[End]
www.oregon.gov/OSBN/pdfs/npa/Div50.pdf

IOW, this is not an FDA approved medication. Dr. Chung is a
cardiologist and apparently does not have current information about
arthritis treatment.

Would suggest Dr. Chung shouldn't be making medical suggestions in areas
in which he has no experience or training.
--
Don
donkirk@covad.net

Don Kirkman wrote:
Actually, Limbrel is comprised of ingredients that the FDA has
characterized as GRAS, which is more stringent then the usual FDA
approval process for medications (the process that brought you Vioxx,
Bextra, and Celebrex).

Actually, I am also board-certified in internal medicine and keep up
with current information on osteoarthritis treatment because such
treatment often interacts with cardiovascular medicine therapies.

Would suggest that Mr. Kirkman look in the mirror to see that carnal
nature he would have others ignore.

Hope the above observations enlightens you and others.

Such is the work being done here for Christ's glory
(http://makeashorterlink.com/?U1E13130A).


Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?L26062048

What is all this about?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?K6F72510A

Is this spam?
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D13B21FF9

in article 8d7hs01vj13e3ck3i7h8ccdu4gveku10qa@4ax.com, nospam@pacbell.net at
nospam@pacbell.net wrote on 12/21/04 2:08 PM:


I do so because I think, but am not certain that these drugs become yes
effective with use, not because they are more dangerous with continued use.

Bill

<george1949@_my-isp_.com> wrote in message news:isdis01ul5dknaqahesp1lukpi7m494nb3@4ax.com...

If a NSAID such as naproxen controls your headaches, what
you're getting are *not* migraines. NSAIDs have been proven
in dozens of formal studies to be useless against migraine. As a
matter of fact NSAIDs have more often found to be a migraine
*trigger* than a prophylactic.

You could be experiencing tension headaches, cluster headaches
or headaches from a thousand different possible sources --
everything from environmental factors to eyesight problems.

On Tue, 21 Dec 2004 11:54:11 -0800, Don Kirkman wrote:


Your pretty much clueless about cardiology.

How in this day and age could people suddenly be asking what
alternatives are there?

Go to your local health food store and ask. There are many, many
options. People come back month after month to replnish their supplies
BECAUSE THE OPTIONS WORK.

Nothing works for everybody. So some experimentation may be required.

If you want double blind studies for your proof, please contact the
makers of Vioxx, Celebrex, and Alleve -- they probably have shredders
full of them.

<me@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:gl7ls0pm22k5jbatrle356e9n2f74hl70u@14.net...
Exactly what the drug companies have been doing for years and years. But the
experiments are finishing now, aren't they ?

Cheers, Rod.

December 23, 2004
Some Scientists Say Aleve's Dangers May Be Overblown
By ANTONIO REGALADO and RON WINSLOW
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Fevered reaction to a recent warning from the National Institutes of
Health that the over-the-counter painkiller Aleve might cause heart
attacks may be overblown, some medical experts say.

According to doctors and officials close to the study of Aleve, made by
Bayer AG, the risk involved was small enough that it was initially
noted without alarm, and wasn't the reason why the study halted
treatment. Doctors instead say they stopped giving Aleve largely
because the patients involved, reacting to news reports about other
pain relievers including Celebrex being linked to heart problems,
started refusing to take their medications.

"Kafka couldn't have written it better," says John Breitner, a
researcher at University of Washington, Seattle, who led the study
comparing Aleve (generic name: naproxen), Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex and a
placebo in the prevention of Alzheimer's. "There was a tremendous
degree of public panic."

Yesterday, in an interview, Dr. Breitner said that evidence of naproxen
side effects in the randomized study was "not really" statistically
significant. Only by combining several side effects and "splicing and
dicing" the data was it possible to detect an effect, he says, and then
only for nonfatal side effects. Among those patients taking naproxen or
the placebo, only two or three actually died from heart attacks and
none from stroke, he said. "So there is no inference you can draw,"
says Dr. Breitner.

That's certain to bolster criticism that officials overreacted in
announcing the naproxen findings. In a conference call Monday with
reporters, the NIH said that naproxen was associated with a 50%
increased risk of heart issues over a placebo and said that 70 patients
out of the approximately 2,400 elderly people in the study suffered
heart attacks and strokes. But the officials didn't provide actual
numbers of effected patients broken down by what drug they took. Dr.
Breitner says this is because the data weren't yet fully audited.

That left researchers, doctors and patients to guess what the
implications might be for individuals. Christopher Cannon, a
cardiologist at Brigham and Women's Hospital and Harvard Medical School
in Boston, says he wished the data had been presented in a "more
rigorous fashion." The way the data are coming out, he says, is "adding
to the confusion and may be creating some harm."

Without more detailed information, it is possible that people will
decide to go off a drug that is helping them or start new ones that
could create new side effects, Dr. Cannon says.

For example, he says, if cardiac patients who take aspirin as a
preventative measure switch their headache medicine from naproxen to
ibuprofen out of fear of heart risks, they could actually end up
increasing their risk because ibuprofen can block the heart benefits of
the aspirin.

Elias Zerhouni, director of the National Institutes of Health, says the
decision to curtail the Alzheimer's trial was made by the doctors
involved, and at that point the institute had no choice but to share
the results widely.

"Transparency is key," Dr. Zerhouni says, adding that because patients
involved were healthy volunteers who didn't yet have Alzheimer's, the
level of acceptable risk was low.

It remains unclear whether naproxen has heart risks or not. Additional
data could emerge that bolsters either side of the issue. Generally, if
results of clinical trials don't clear certain statistical hurdles,
known as P values, it heightens the likelihood that the results are due
to chance and not because of the effect of a treatment.

The side-effect scare began when Merck & Co. Inc. withdrew its
painkiller Vioxx from the market in September, after learning from a
large trial that the drug doubled the risk of heart attack and stroke
if taken for 18 months.

That prompted the NIH to begin scrutinizing studies it had under way,
specifically those involving Pfizer's Celebrex, a painkiller pill
similar to Vioxx. Last Friday, the NIH called a press conference to say
it had found an increased risk for Celebrex in another cancer trial,
prompting taking those patients off the drug.

Although other studies contradict that finding, the NIH announcement
caused some elderly patients in Dr. Breitner's Alzheimer's study to
stop taking their pills, fearing they might be taking Celebrex instead
of naproxen or a placebo, says Susan Molchan, director of the
Alzheimer's disease clinical trials program at the NIH's National
Institute on Aging. "People were voting with their feet. They were
walking out of the trial," says Dr. Molchan.

The trial organizers called an emergency meeting. Between losing
patients and the new information about the risks of Celebrex, they felt
they couldn't dispense the Pfizer drug any longer. But that led to
another dilemma, since preliminary data analyzed just a week earlier
had indicated something entirely different: no increased risk for
Celebrex, but a potential increased risk for naproxen.

The team decided to suspend all the treatments. "We tolerate so little
risk that we ended up for nonscientific reasons stopping the trial,"
says Dr. Molchan, who attributed the move to "a series of unfortunate
events."

Researchers say they will try to salvage what data they can from the
trial. But it's not just a potential scientific loss: Dr. Breitner
notes the NIH had already spent around $26 million on the Alzheimer's
study.

Concerns about painkillers are spreading to other countries. Europe's
chief pharmaceuticals regulator said it would accelerate its safety
review of the drugs after seeing the recent study data involving
Celebrex. The European Medicines Agency, or EMEA, cited data that
indicated "an increased risk of serious cardiovascular events" that may
be related to the dose and duration of treatment with Celebrex. The
EMEA was referring to the same data that Pfizer disclosed last Friday-a
U.S. government-sponsored study of Celebrex in cancer prevention that
found high doses were linked to an increased cardiovascular risk.

The EMEA has now decided to accelerate a safety review begun in October
of the class of drugs. It is asking all makers of the pills to submit
by early January results of all human trials they have carried out with
the drugs. The EMEA will then hold a hearing with all the companies to
discuss the data. Previously, the agency expected to hold the hearing
in February or later. The EMEA said it is trying to determine whether
more safety studies are needed.

================================================== ===

December 23, 2004
Drug Risk Can Pale Next to Pain
Prescriptions for Celebrex Sink, But Many Doctors Want Choice
By THOMAS M. BURTON and KEVIN HELLIKER
Staff Reporters of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

Daniel Derman, a Chicago internist, has stopped prescribing certain
painkillers in recent days, concerned about the possible cardiovascular
risks.

But Mark Box, a rheumatologist in Kansas City, Mo., is continuing to
recommend a set of controversial anti-inflammatory drugs to patients,
including his 82-year-old mother. Indeed, he takes them himself. "I
have tendonitis in my foot," he says.

The recent onslaught of indications that some anti-inflammatory
painkillers may increase the risk of heart attack or stroke has
prompted tens of thousands of arthritis sufferers to besiege their
physicians for advice. Nearly 100 patients this week have called Dr.
Box, he estimates.

But in fielding such calls, physicians have no guide to follow except
their own interpretations of newly available studies, some of which
contradict other studies. Medical societies have remained mum on how
their members should interpret the data. The American Medical
Association is merely directing inquiries to the Food and Drug
Administration's Web site, where the studies are described. For
physicians, any attempt to draw conclusions is complicated by the fact
that each of the suspect painkillers was the subject of a different
study, and the studies don't appear to be equally valid.

Yet it is clear that for all doctors, prescribing painkillers is a
trickier task than it was only a week ago. And this already is showing
up in prescription data. According to data from ImpactRx, a
drug-promotion research firm in Mount Laurel, N.J., new prescriptions
for Pfizer Inc.'s Celebrex and Bextra have seen a dramatic falloff in
light of the recent studies linking Celebrex to increased risk of
cardiac events. While both drugs saw an uptick after Merck & Co.
withdrew Vioxx on Sept. 30 -- also amid worries about cardiovascular
risk -- prescription patterns have swung another way since then.

ImpactRx's prescribing data, a sample of 1,800 primary-care doctors,
show that Celebrex's share of new prescriptions for painkillers sank to
3% Dec. 21, based on a three-day rolling average, down from a high of
20% Oct. 2. Bextra's share of new prescriptions for painkillers slid to
1% for the same period, down from 17% in the period immediately
following Vioxx's withdrawal.

Mary Frank is president of the American Academy of Family Physicians,
but she emphasizes her position on so-called Cox-2 inhibitors such as
Celebrex and Bextra reflects only her own interpretation of the data on
those drugs.

As a family practitioner in Rohnert Park, Calif., Dr. Frank says she
isn't greatly concerned about young patients without apparent cardiac
risks. "But if you're 58, I'm going to tell you you should be on
something else," she says.

But a Chicago physician who specializes in the treatment of young
arthritic patients finds that any rational position tends to crumble
amid the onslaught of parents terrified about the cardiac health of
their offspring. "Parents are pulling the plug on these medicines,"
says Charles H. Spencer, a University of Chicago pediatrics professor
who works at Chicago's La Rabida Children's Hospital.

An estimated 250,000 U.S. children suffer from juvenile rheumatoid
arthritis -- a painful and often debilitating condition. Painkillers
such as Celebrex and naproxen, which is sold by BayerAG under the brand
name Aleve as well as in generic form, have been crucial in tamping
down the inflammation that can cripple these children. Celebrex in
particular has been useful because many children find it kinder on the
stomach than the older painkillers, yet it is now under a cloud. And
earlier this week alarm bells were rung about Aleve, although some
medical experts argue the findings have been overblown.

As many as 10 parents a day are calling Dr. Spencer and demanding an
alternative to painkillers like Celebrex, which was found in one study
to have a greater cardiac risk when compared with a placebo. "I have
been switching them off onto other drugs," Dr. Spencer says. "It's a
real mess for us, because we're not really sure how bad the risk is."

Dr. Derman, the president of a large physician group affiliated with
Northwestern Memorial Hospital in Chicago, says his reading of the
studies that prompted Merck to pull Vioxx off the market this autumn
raised big concerns about the safety of Celebrex and Bextra. All are in
the Cox-2 class.

"I was concerned enough about it being a class effect that I did not
switch Vioxx patients to Celebrex" or Bextra, he says.

"Then, lo and behold, the information comes out on Celebrex, and it's
concern enough to say I would not use that product," Dr. Derman says.
"I would be shocked if it's not off the market soon."

But to Dr. Box, the Vioxx data looked significantly more alarming than
did the studies on Celebrex, Bextra or Aleve. Also, Dr. Box shakes his
head at cardiologists he has seen on TV recommending that patients
switch to Tylenol or ibuprofen. He says he wonders whether
cardiologists understand how crippling severe arthritis can be, and he
notes that nearly all treatments have risks with benefits.

"I'm telling people that based on all the evidence I've seen, Celebrex
remains a safe option," he says.

"People are misunderstanding that a drug is safe because it's
over-the-counter," says Brian L. Strom, chair of the Department of
Epidemiology & Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania School
of Medicine. "Drugs are inherently poison that are given to interfere
with the body's normal system," he says. Society allows medicine to be
sold "because we think the benefits are greater than the side effects."

December 22, 2004
Rethinking Over-the-Counter Drugs
Finding on Aleve Underscores Dearth of Overall Research; Little
Incentive for Trials
By SCOTT HENSLEY
Staff Reporter of THE WALL STREET JOURNAL

A government finding that Aleve, the widely used pain reliever, appears
to increase the risk for heart problems underscores how little is known
about possible side effects of some common older medicines.

Although much attention has been paid recently to drug-safety problems
that have emerged in newer prescription drugs, such as Vioxx, the same
scrutiny hasn't been applied to older over-the-counter medicines and
prescription drugs that long ago went generic. The reasons have to do
with changing regulatory standards and economic incentives.

These older pills came to market decades ago as prescription drugs when
standards for approval were more relaxed -- Aleve, generically known
naproxen, was a medicine available by prescription only for nearly 20
years before the over-the-counter version was approved a decade ago.
Prescription-strength naproxin still is sold. In the past, studies were
smaller and less comprehensive, sometimes lasting weeks or months.
Today, studies can run for years.

One reason safety problems such as these are coming to light now is
that larger, longer drug trials -- such as the government's Alzheimer's
disease-prevention study that raised alarm bells about Aleve -- are
putting some of these older drugs to more rigorous tests. A careful
clinical trial can tease out safety signals that may have been lurking
undetected or underappreciated.

Aleve marks the fourth major pain killer in recent months to show signs
of raising the odds of heart attack and stroke. The others were
Pfizer's Bextra and Celebrex and Merck & Co.'s Vioxx. Those three are
so-called Cox-2 inhibitors, a new category in the broader class of
painkillers known as nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, or NSAIDs,
including Aleve.

For years, Aleve was thought to be protective of the heart, like
aspirin. Indeed, Merck has cited that to explain why patients taking
Vioxx had more heart problems than patients taking naproxen in a
clinical trial.

But the heart-protection assumption about Aleve hadn't been proven in
rigorous clinical trials. When it was put to a careful test, the
Alzheimer's study sponsored by the National Institutes of Health, a
safety check turned up the indication that Aleve appeared to increase
by about 50% the risk of cardiovascular problems, such as strokes and
heart attack, in elderly patients taking the drug daily for several
years.

A spokesman for Aleve's maker, Bayer AG, says the company is "obviously
concerned" by reports on the Alzheimer's trial but hasn't seen the data
yet, since the full analysis hasn't been completed or released by the
study's independent safety committee. The company said the findings
contradict nearly 30 years' experience of safe use of the drug. Bayer
agrees with the FDA that consumers should carefully follow the
instructions of the Aleve label, which limits treatment of pain to 10
days or less, unless otherwise directed by a doctor.

The findings from studies like the Alzheimer's research can be jarring
because of prevailing perceptions among consumers that drugs approved
by the Food and Drug Administration are free of risk. The image of
safety is particularly true of medicines that don't require a
prescription and are heavily advertised.

But that isn't always the case, drug experts say. "People are
misunderstanding that a drug is safe because it's over-the-counter,"
says Brian L. Strom, chair of the Department of Epidemiology &
Biostatistics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.
"Drugs are inherently poison that are given to interfere with the
body's normal system," he says. Society allows medicine to be sold
"because we think the benefits are greater than the side effects."

Some doctors make the point that the odds of cardiovascular trouble
arising from short-term use of common painkillers is slight. In the
Alzheimer's study, for instance, patients received Aleve for as long as
three years -- well beyond the 10-day period indicated for
over-the-counter use. "Yes, there's a risk with any drug of something
untoward happening," says Evelyn Hermes DeSantis, clinical associate
professor of pharmacy at Rutgers University in New Brunswick, N.J. She
says the cardiovascular risk from over-the-counter products is minimal
with limited use.

For drugs to move from prescription to over the counter, the FDA must
determine they are safe and effective for people to use without the
help of a doctor. Drug makers typically submit clinical data and
results from real-world tests of how consumers use the medicine. The
FDA must weigh whether people will be able to self-diagnose the
problem, figure out the appropriate treatment and how to use it.

Painkillers are commonplace in medicine chests everywhere, especially
the category of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, NSAIDs, that
include ibuprofen and naproxen. Besides being perceived as safe, these
drugs are old and unlikely to generate blockbuster sales growth.
Therefore the companies have little incentive to run clinical trials
that would look for side effects.

Older NSAIDs present a challenge for the FDA because many haven't been
part of big trials, an agency spokesman said. The FDA is examining the
data that are available, including trials that compare newer COX-2
inhibitors to older NSAIDs, he said.

NSAIDs have long been known to raise the risk of gastrointentinal
bleeding with long-term use. In fact, that shortcoming is what fueled
the development of drugs such as Vioxx and Celebrex to relieve pain and
inflammation while reducing the risk of bleeding.

Vioxx was pulled from the market by Merck in September after a study
found it doubled the risk for heart attacks and strokes in patients
taking the drug for 18 months and longer. Celebrex was believed to have
a lower risk of cardiac problems than Vioxx. That view was shaken when
a safety review announced last week found an increased rate of heart
attack and strokes in patients taking the drug as part of a study in
colon cancer prevention.

Yesterday, British authorities advised doctors by letter to switch from
Celebrex to drugs other than Cox-2 inhibitors, especially for patients
with cardiovascular risk. The regulators cited the emerging evidence on
the drug class, including the new data on Celebrex.

CLEARING THE BAR

Some of the requirements for approval for over-the-counter drugs:

· The FDA must determine they are safe and effective for people to
use without the help of a doctor.

· Drug makers typically submit clinical data and results from
real-world tests of how consumers use the medicine.
· OTC drugs must have little potential for abuse or addiction.

in article 1103779245.200178.12420@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.c om,
awthrawthr@yahoo.com at awthrawthr@yahoo.com wrote on 12/22/04 9:20 PM:


Bill

Drugs are indeed "poison". Even multivitamins (in large doses). People
should remember this

That's stretching the meaning of words. It would be more accurate to
say that many if not most things can be poisonous in high enough doses.
But it's not true that all drugs are poisons by any reasonable
definition.

Are you sure about that? The ones I've seen indicate that certain
NSAIDs in various combinations are quite effective against migraine:
rizatriptan/clotam, sumatriptan/naproxen, and even the old standby
acetaminophen/aspirin/caffeine all being more effective than the
currently favored triptan drugs alone. Unfortunately one of the best
combinations in the studies, rizatriptan/rofecoxib (the late Vioxx), is
now a dead letter.

--
Chris Green

Okay, Vioxx, Celebrex and Aleve are all out. What about Bextra?

Every year I pull a neck muscle doing Macedonian dancing at GreekFest.
I take Bextra for it (along with Valium).

My personal opinion, is that all drugs have side effects. For some
people it is worth the risk.
Kara Tyson
Lyme Disease Support Group of AL
Director

I agree.

I personally like to know who PAID for the study. Usually you can tell
what the result will be if you know where the money is coming from.

If a study is done on meat causing cancer, if PETA paid for the
study..I can tell you what the result will be.

"Kara" <alabamalyme@usa.com> wrote in message
news:1104595081.964482.61540@z14g2000cwz.googlegro ups.com...
I belong to *P*eople for *E*ating *T*asty *A*nimals, and we do not fund
studies. If you want to see how tasty meat it, buy it yourself.

Yes, this is true. But that doesn't mean studies are invalid. You
have to read each study in detail to see whether its conclusions are
valid.

Recently in the news was a study funded by the Pravachol folks which
showed that Lipitor was superior.

Mark Probert wrote:

I guess that's funny, but it doesn't say anything pertinent. Are you
saying studies are unnecessary? Well that's not true. We aren't going
to try medicines on patients without testing them first.