Why are foreigners who have never set foot in the US obsessed with how much and how we spend and how we spend our bucks on our excellent health care?

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 15:33:33 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare
something?

The Chicago figure dates from 1995.

Are you completely unaware of all the
technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems
that makes you're argument completely ridiculous?

There have been no significant technological advances in this domain,
particularly since 1995. The last important advance was air conditioning, but
it places where it is not widely used, it is not much of a factor.


Right. No medical advances since 1995. Well, there goes all the
other guy's major European drug advances alone.

No one said no major advances, just that no major advances have been
shown in the treatment of heat related deaths between 1995 and 2003,

you are a tool.

and yes, I am bashing now because you have a ****ing thick skull, and
the only way to get something into it is to bash you over the head
with it.

GK

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:32:33 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



Perhaps so you'll better comprehend:

I've can comprehend the fact easily the Yanks sat on their hands while
Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe

Oh poor Europe. Why don't you just stop killing each other and
relying on us?


totally different debate, you claimed that the US did not sit on its'
hands
when Europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini I pointed out that you
were wrong

Only you would think a neutral country at the time not acting for less
than a year and a half, not the two you said, would be sitting on its
hands,


where did I say 2 years?

compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?

so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when it
come to sitting on hands. Your point is what






a. less than a year and a half is nothing.


Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted

Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like
America when it saving your asses isn't it?

America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self
interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour

Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for
any other reason. Brilliant.

so we agree that they sat on their hands.





Switzerland never did
anything except rip off jews the entire war

we aren't discussing Switzerland

That's right. It's not in Europe is it? Spain then. Oops not in
Europe either. Ireland then. Oops also not in Europe. Portugal.
My god, also not in Europe. Sweden. Definitely not in Europe.

wtf r u going on about? I think you are trying to divert attention from
the
fact that the US sat on its' hands while europe was threatened by Hitler
and
Mussolini. This may have been a good thing or a bad thing but it is a fact

Uhh, how about an analysis of European countries that sat on their
hands for the ENTIRE WWII?

if you want to start a thread about that fine, however we are discussing how
America sat on its' hands






b. why should we have done anything at all? Europeans love to
slaughter each other--see entire 20th century.

you only did something about it after Pearl harbour, if not the
Americans
would have continued to try and make a profit out of the European War.

Never heard of Lendlease have you? How about the Marshall Plan
afterwards. Did you hear of that?

Len Lease that was a deferred payment scheme wasn't it. Now do you note
that the Marshall plan was AFTER the war. Doesn't take away from the fact
that the yanks had sat on their hands

You really are a simpleton aren't you? I don't know Len. Is he a
friend of yours? Here, why don't you read about what it really was
and see how much we got back:

Lend-Lease was the name of the program under which the United States
of America supplied Great Britain, the Soviet Union, China, France and
other Allied nations with vast amounts of war material between 1941
and 1945 in return for land to house a military base. It began in
March 1941, nine months before Pearl Harbor. It was abruptly stopped
by the Americans immediately after VE-day

A total of $50.1 billion (equivalent to nearly $700 billion at 2007
prices) worth of supplies were shipped: $31.4 billion to Britain,
$11.3 billion to the Soviet Union, $3.2 billion to France and $1.6
billion to China. Reverse Lend Lease comprised services (like rent on
air bases) that went to the U.S. It totaled $7.8 billion, of which
$6.8 billion came from the British and the Commonwealth. Apart from
that, there were no repayments of supplies that arrived before the
termination date. (Supplies after that date were sold to Britain at a
discount, for £1,075 million, using long-term loans from the U.S.)

And, oh yeah, while we were sitting on our hands:

Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act
of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States
to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise
dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems
vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article".
Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the
end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the
Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were
transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange
for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.

Reduces your stupid sitting on our hands crap doesn't it?


Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the
european war





c. in spite of this, we did and took care of the problem didn't we?
Just like Bosnia.

well I think those damn Russians had quite a bit to do with it

That's right. They were going to veto the action in the Security
Council, so it was done with NATO. Big contribution.

I was referring to WW2

Funny we were talking about Bosnia and the US. No one doubts what
Russia did, but go and read about Stalingrad and you will have hoped
both Stalin and Hitler would have lost, given what they both did.

Actually you keep raising Bosnia to divert attention from the fact that
America sat on its hands while Europe was threatened by Hitler et al

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:01:56 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:




the largest selling company doesn't provide 90% of the development.

How do you know who does 90% of the development.

So you pull anumber out of your ass and expect it's credible, Whereas
I have shown that many international companies produce many of the
most innovative medical research around

Speak for yourself. As I said, you haven't proved anything about who
does what development. Anywhere anytime.



If you want to talk aboput where development takes, it is all over the
world with studies in many many countries, so your whining on that
front doesn't hold up. There are university sites throughout western
Europe, Canada, India South Africa working on drugs for many of the
companies, including Pfizer.

True, but this doesn't tell anything about how much of the development
is done where does it? It just says that development is being
undertaken in lots of different places.

Again, your department of pulled out of the ass statistics has no
support, several international groups doing research and development
does not support your assertion

You're, of course, the one trying to pull stuff out of your ass. For
the umpteenth time, WHERE have you shown anywhere who did the
development for the drugs you listed? Answer: you didn't and can't.



The point of argument here is that you refuted Black with an argument
that you couldn't back, you've been shown the evidence, now move along
to something you can back.

You haven't done anything but list a bunch of different drugs.
Nothing more. I never said non-US drug companies didn't do
development. I said that the article I read said that 90% (at the
point the article was written) was done in the US. Period. And you
have no idea where that list of drugs you came up with were developed
do you? For all you know, they may have been developed in the US.

and you have never shown your assertion to be close to true. Since 4
of the top 5 companies are doing innovative research in their
countries and abroad there is sweet **** all to your assertion

So, having shown you are a complete liar and have demonstrated nothing
at all about where the drugs were developed and by whom, you will now
just babble on like this to try to cover your bull****.



The fact that 10 minutes of research on my part showed your 90% of all
good medical things are american is false. Maybe you should learn that
arguments need facts to back.

Which, of course, is a complete distortion of what I said, which
referred only to drug development and, as I said, you proved no such
thing. You have no clue where those drugs you listed were developed,
as I said. You only showed who sells them after they are developed
and who owns their rights to do so. Nothing more.

Most are done at their labs in switzerland, germany and france. these
large companies have batteries of pharmacologist doing on-site
research.

Proof? None.


AstraZeneca, main research labs are in Sodertalje, Sweden with 5
other European R&D centers, 2 U.S. centers, 2 in Japan, 1 in India and
a new center in Shanghai

Oh, 2 US ones with a large one that I know of NJ because my wife has
friends that work there. Nothing done there, of course.


GlaxoSmithKline major research centers are in U.K (4), Italy, Croatia
and France, and 3 in the U.S.

Oh, 3 more in the US. Know what's done where? No.


Pfizer has most of their R&D in the U.S. but has 3 international R&D
centers

Oh US again. By the largest of them all.


Sanofi Aventis has 19 European Research centers, 12 in France, 4
American centers, and 2 in Japan

Ah 4 more. Nothing done there, of course.


Novartis has 1500 scientists employed at the Basel Switzerland site 2
american sites, 2 other European sites and 1 japanese site hosts a
further total of 800 scientists

Roche has 2 pharmaceutical labs in Europe 1 in China, 2 in the U.S.,
they also have diagnostics R&D at 5 European centers and 2 in the
U.S.


Merck interestingly has 200 people at the main Boston Lab, plans to
increase to 400, they don't say much about their rosetta division,
other than about the 5 chief scientists. They proudly hail the
accomplishments of 225 scientists at the Montreal site. There is a
site in England that does R&D, but not sure the numbers employed.

Eli Lilly has 2 locations for R&D in the U.S. (down from 4), and R&D
facilities in Australia, Belgium, China, England, Germany, Japan,
Singapore and Spain.

No matter how you slice it, the U.S. does not do 90% of the
innovation, whether you guage it by the compnay headquarters, or by
the R&D facility locations.

All this listing proves what I said about their US presence and
disproves nothing of what I said, because as I keep saying, you have
no clue what is done where and by whom, with what success rate, etc.
etc. Just hand waving bull**** as if the more you talk the more
credible it becomes. You're just like the heat stroke guy who thinks
the more he babbles the more credibility he has. All while it
published all over the internet how the French system failed in 2003
and the health minister was forced to resign.


The reality is that the Western countries (Europe, U.S. and Canada)
are doing most of the research and it is well divided up.

For which you again have absolutely no proof.


Bluntly I don't care about the American medical system, That's for
Americans to worry about. I found your misinformation, however,
offensive and you made those statements based on your nationalistic
hubris.

And you are full of ****, because I did no such thing but you're
making a great attempt here of doing that yourself aren't you?
Crowing about a list of drugs owned and marketed by non-US companies
that you have no clue where they were developed.

Again, I've shown where the companies are and where the R&D is done.
You have failed to back your arguments. You simply do not provide
proof for your statements.

You, of course, have done nothing of the kind. You have no clue where
the successful development is done, by whom, how much or anything
else.


My intent was to show your 90% argument is flawed, I have done so. If
you want to refute it do some damn research. I'm finished doing it for
you.

That's good because nothing you have shown refutes anything.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:17:57 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 22:22:02 GMT, (John Kulp)
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 20:04:55 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


What on earth could that mean? Just how can anyone measure by what's
"major"?

Uh, you could start with sales. The major ones sell the most


crappy determinant, how about the drugs that actually produce an
effective change in therapeutic methods. Just because a new birth
control pill becomes more popular because of lining american doctors
pockets does not mean it's a major new drug from any meaningful
perspective to the general population.

Back to bashing are you? Just when you were beginning to be sensible.
There are, of course, lots of ways to measure this and sales IS the
most common. If I had a serious disease, however, my first one would
be the one that effectively treated that disease whether anyone else
bought it or not. That's why the saying "statistics don't lie. Liars
use statistics."


Not bashing, the simple fact is that sales are not a good determinant
of quality, inventiveness or efficacy. Those are the considerations
that really mean something, and for the argument, one should be using
originality. Your own arguments were about innovation.

I already said there were more ways to look at things than just sales,
but sales is the measure most commonly available for measurement.
Where are you numbers for measuring those you mentioned?


If you want to measure the impact of drug development, you should use
a standard that actually has an impact on how it impacts patient
health and change in standard of treatment.

Funny, they have done this for years for Lipitor which is by far the
biggest selling drug worldwide, or are you now arguing that it has no
impact on mortality or morbidity?


The development of simvastatin as the first marketable statin was
important, it had global impact on how we treat and prevent heart
disease, the development of Lipitor and Crestor were simply ways for
other drug companies to cash in. Lipitor selling more than Zocor and
Crestor has everything to do with marketing.

Complete nonsense. There us considerable differences between these
statins and their combinations with other drugs, creating Vytorin, for
example, which both raises significantly good cholesterol and lowers
the bad. Simivastin, in fact, is one of the components of Vytorin.
And, for your information, it was NOT the first marketable statin.
Lovastatin was. Mevastatin was the first discovered, which occurs
naturally, but wasn't marketed. And Crestor is viewed as an outright
dangerous statin as viewed by many professionals who think it should
be pulled from the market Just like Bayer's Baycol was. Oops. That
was a major European drug wasn't it?

Your full of ****, Crestor is no different in safety profile vs.
Lipitor, it is cheaper, it produces less effect on HDL than Lipitor at
half the dose, so dose dependant SE are much less. Oops, Bayer is an
American company, was confiscated in WWii and i based in the U.S.

Vytorin is a combination drug, it does not significantly raise HDL, it
has drops it the same as Lipitor, it's just that the Ezetrol component
that has no effect on HDLt. It has all the risks of Lipitor.

Oh by the way, Zocor was R&D by Merck concurrently with Mevacor, it
was released later to compete with the competitions more potent
Pravachol, allowing Merck to release Mevacor and keep a little more
patent life on Zocor, it was truly the first discovered marketable
statin.

Do some damn research


Your argument that 90% of all good medical things are american needs
measurement by a standard that is meaningful in the practice of
medicine and patient outcome, sales aren't it.

Which I never said, of course, but obviously from the above, accuracy
isn't your forte.


FWIW Crestor is better than Lipitor, and is the only statin with
minimal HDL effect, Lipitor is no better than Zocor.

Baloney. Crestor is quicker acting and nothing more and most probably
outright dangerous. Zocor and Lipitor are roughly equivalent for most
people but can vary dramatically individually. Vytorin beats them
both head and shoulders (I know because I have used both Lipitor and
Vytorin). And Lipitor, unlike all the others is the only one that has
been shown to actually reduce arterial clogging as well.

No Crestor is at least twice asd potent as Crestor for equivalent
dosing, HDL suppression is significantly less. It is absolutely no
more dangerous than Lipitor.

As far as Vytorin vs. Lipitor, it's 2 drugs moron, of course it works
better than Lipitor, it's Lipitor and Ezetrol. It takes Vytorin 20 to
equal Crestor 10. and no Lipitor doesn't have an endothelial effect,
that's Lipitor combined with an ACE, marketed in a combo-form called
Caduet.

Oops, mistake here, Vytorin is Ezetrol + Zocor, my mistake (Vytorin is
not marketed in Canada)

I'd rather them be separate as I add Ezetrol to Crestor for better
effect.

Oh, by the way, just this month, Crestor was shown to be the only
statin showing actual reduction of arterial plaque, just read it 10
minutes ago, so not only does Lipitor not do it as you claimed, but
Crestor does.

GK

I should know, I'm a physician, I see the results every day working in
a population that is very homogeneous with a high penetration of
genetic hypercholesterolemia.

Oh, and all the ranting about the dangers of statins, rhabdomyolysis
is exceedingly rare, I've seen a true case once in 19 years, and it
was easily reversed by stopping the statin.

You are truly a boob.

GK

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:17:57 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:



The development of simvastatin as the first marketable statin was
important, it had global impact on how we treat and prevent heart
disease, the development of Lipitor and Crestor were simply ways for
other drug companies to cash in. Lipitor selling more than Zocor and
Crestor has everything to do with marketing.

Complete nonsense. There us considerable differences between these
statins and their combinations with other drugs, creating Vytorin, for
example, which both raises significantly good cholesterol and lowers
the bad. Simivastin, in fact, is one of the components of Vytorin.
And, for your information, it was NOT the first marketable statin.
Lovastatin was. Mevastatin was the first discovered, which occurs
naturally, but wasn't marketed. And Crestor is viewed as an outright
dangerous statin as viewed by many professionals who think it should
be pulled from the market Just like Bayer's Baycol was. Oops. That
was a major European drug wasn't it?

Your full of ****, Crestor is no different in safety profile vs.
Lipitor, it is cheaper, it produces less effect on HDL than Lipitor at
half the dose, so dose dependant SE are much less. Oops, Bayer is an
American company, was confiscated in WWii and i based in the U.S.

First, isn't interesting where you skipped entirely my showing you
were a complete liar claiming that simivastin was the first marketable
statin. As accurate as your other claims

Second, read this from the FDA about Crestor and tell us again where
it is no different in safety:

Astra-Zeneca Pharmaceuticals today released a revised package insert
for Crestor (rosuvastatin) for use in the 22 member states of the
European Union (EU). The changes to the European labeling are in
response to postmarketing spontaneous adverse event reports in
patients receiving Crestor and highlight certain patient populations
who may be at an increased risk for serious muscle toxicity (myopathy)
associated with Crestor use, especially at the highest approved dose
of 40 mg. These risk factors and many of the recommendations for how
to minimize the risk of myopathy are already captured in the FDA
approved labeling for Crestor in the U.S. FDA is alerting physicians
to the need to carefully read the Crestor product label and follow the
recommendations for starting doses, dose adjustments, and maximum
daily doses to minimize the risk of myopathy in individual patients.

Crestor, a member of a class of cholesterol-lowering drugs commonly
referred to as “statins”, was approved in the U.S. in August 2003,
based on review of an extensive clinical database involving
approximately 12,000 patients. At that time, the FDA identified in the
WARNINGS section of the product label those patients whose increased
baseline risk for myopathy warranted more careful monitoring when
prescribed Crestor. The U.S. approved labeling included a specific
section titled, “Myopathy/Rhabdomyolysis”, which states that patients
who are of advanced age (³ 65 years), have hypothyroidism, and/or
renal insufficiency should be considered to have a greater risk for
developing myopathy while receiving a statin. Physicians are warned to
prescribe Crestor with caution in these patients, particularly at
higher doses, as the risk of myopathy increases with higher drug
levels.

In addition, the U.S. approved labeling for Crestor states that
increased rosuvastatin drug levels were observed in certain
sub-populations of patients (e.g., subgroups of Asians, patients
concomitantly using cyclosporine and gemfibrozil), conferring
increased risk of myopathy. Because of these findings, the FDA
required Astra-Zeneca to make available in the U.S. a 5-mg dose that
could be used in patients requiring less aggressive
cholesterol-lowering or who were taking concurrent cyclosporine. The
maximum recommended dose in the FDA-approved label is limited to 10 mg
daily in patients with severe renal impairment or who are also taking
gemfibrozil.

Third, you don't know one company from the other. It was the German
Bayer that made this product. But this is as accurate as you ever
get:

LONDON (CNN) -- Germany's Bayer said on Monday 52 people are thought
to have died after taking the anti-cholesterol product Baycol, its
fastest-growing drug.

Bayer said it was reviewing the future of it drugs arm but would not
ditch its strategy of producing both chemicals and pharmaceuticals,
and denied it was "a company in need of rescue."

The company, one of Germany's big two chemicals and drug makers, said
two big drugmakers had shown interest in buying its pharmaceuticals
arm. A sale was a possibility, but not the company's preferred option,
said Chief Executive Manfred Schneider.

The company pulled the drug, also sold as Lipobay, last Wednesday
after it emerged it was linked to deaths of about 40 people. Bayer
shares plunged 18 percent on the day.


This extraordinarily unfortunate series of problems ... poses
no threat to Bayer's existence.


The axeing of the drug came after increasing evidence that the drug
caused deterioration in muscle tissue, a condition called
rhabdomyolysis, which is known to cause severe pain and potential
kidney failure. However, the company stressed "that there is currently
no proof that" the drug is the cause of the deaths.

"Even this extraordinarily unfortunate series of problems -- whether
home-made or caused by external factors -- poses no threat to Bayer's
existence," Chief Executive Manfred Schneider said.

"Our sales this year will increase even though Baycol will now be
absent," Schneider added. But he warned shareholders that the company
would have to cut its dividend for this year.

"We now see the strength of our 'four-pillar' strategy, even if only
two of those pillars -- namely agriculture and chemicals -- currently
show a stable earnings trend overall."

The company has come under intense pressure to create separate
businesses for its chemicals and healthcare operations, or take on a
partner for its drug business, to enable it to compete with the
world's giants, such as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) of the UK and Pfizer
(PFE: Research, Estimates) of the U.S.

As well as thses two arms, Bayer has separate units producing polymers
and agricultural chemicals.

While Schneider said it was not yet clear if anti-cholesterol drug
Baycol would be relaunched in future, the company's head of
pharmaceuticals, David Ebsworth, described a relaunch as unlikely.

Schneider reiterated earlier downbeat earning assessments. The drug
was expected to generate sales of graphic1 billion ($900 million) this
year, up from graphic636 million last year. The company expects
earnings to be reduced by between graphic600 million and graphic650
million this year due to the loss of Baycol.

"Since the economy is unlikely to improve before the end of the year,
our operating income will be further impaired by the economic
situation," Schneider said.
Jobs, costs to be cut

Bayer, which makes products ranging from Aspirin to chemicals for
industry and fragrances for perfume, said it has initiated a programme
to reduce costs by graphic1.5 billion a year by 2005. The company
plans to axe 5,000 jobs in the process.

The company said it has other drugs in the pipeline. They include a
rival for Viagra, called Vardenafil, which is due on the market by
2002, along with a new antibiotic and two cancer drugs. "But they
cannot compensate for the loss of Baycol," Schneider said.

Bayer, which was forced to halt shipments of its haemophilia drug
Kogenate in January after the U.S. Food and Drug Administration found
bacteria present in some of the manufacturing stages of Kogenate, said
it health care business would no longer meet its target of improving
profit margins by 20 percent.

The company said it is still negotiating with Franco-German drugmaker
Aventis to buy Aventis CropScience. The acquisition "will boost the
earnings situation in the Group as a whole in the short tern," said
Schneider. "This is a step of exceptional strategic importance, so
there is no reason to question it because of the problems in
pharmaceuticals."


Vytorin is a combination drug, it does not significantly raise HDL, it
has drops it the same as Lipitor, it's just that the Ezetrol component
that has no effect on HDLt. It has all the risks of Lipitor.

Funny, since I started taking it, my cholesterol has dropped from
about 230 to 106 the last blood test I had. Totally, ineffective it
is. Right.


Oh by the way, Zocor was R&D by Merck concurrently with Mevacor, it
was released later to compete with the competitions more potent
Pravachol, allowing Merck to release Mevacor and keep a little more
patent life on Zocor, it was truly the first discovered marketable
statin.

Do some damn research

I did moron, which clearly said lovastain was the first marketable
statin. Mevacor is just the brand name of lovastatin.



Your argument that 90% of all good medical things are american needs
measurement by a standard that is meaningful in the practice of
medicine and patient outcome, sales aren't it.

Which I never said, of course, but obviously from the above, accuracy
isn't your forte.


FWIW Crestor is better than Lipitor, and is the only statin with
minimal HDL effect, Lipitor is no better than Zocor.

Baloney. Crestor is quicker acting and nothing more and most probably
outright dangerous. Zocor and Lipitor are roughly equivalent for most
people but can vary dramatically individually. Vytorin beats them
both head and shoulders (I know because I have used both Lipitor and
Vytorin). And Lipitor, unlike all the others is the only one that has
been shown to actually reduce arterial clogging as well.

No Crestor is at least twice asd potent as Crestor for equivalent
dosing, HDL suppression is significantly less. It is absolutely no
more dangerous than Lipitor.

Funny the FDA thinks so isn't it? As well as lots of others:

" Crestor's launch was delayed by a year because the FDA demanded
additional studies because of safety concerns. In March, Dr. Sidney
Wolf, director of Public Citizen Health Group petitioned the FDA to
ban Crestor because it had been linked to kidney failure and damage
and rhabdomyolsis, a rare potentially fatal, muscle-destroying
condition.

Wolf had a letter published in the prestigious British medical
journal, The Lancet, outlining the dangers of Crestor. And European
regulators recently changed Crestor's label to stress that patients on
the highest dose of the drug be monitored carefully. Concerns about
rhabdomyolsis rise with higher doses of statins. "

Hey. go ahead and take it. I wll stick with Vytorin and let you risk
killing yourself.


As far as Vytorin vs. Lipitor, it's 2 drugs moron, of course it works
better than Lipitor, it's Lipitor and Ezetrol. It takes Vytorin 20 to
equal Crestor 10. and no Lipitor doesn't have an endothelial effect,
that's Lipitor combined with an ACE, marketed in a combo-form called
Caduet.

I should know, I'm a physician, I see the results every day working in
a population that is very homogeneous with a high penetration of
genetic hypercholesterolemia.

Who cares? I could find 10 doctors none of whom agree with each
other. I know what my cholesterol did, because I have the results.
Crestor has been widely criticized as being unsafe, including by Dr,
Sidney Wolf who is also a physician. And his comments have severly
impacted Crestor's sales as a result, along with the FDA warning, at
least in the US. Why do you know anymore than they do?


Oh, and all the ranting about the dangers of statins, rhabdomyolysis
is exceedingly rare, I've seen a true case once in 19 years, and it
was easily reversed by stopping the statin.


Well, one case would certainly make you an expert wouldn't it? The
FDA doesn't go about issuing specific warnings about drugs and highly
publicize them for only one case. For some reason, especially given
all your inaccuracies here, I will take their word over yours.

You are truly a boob.

Whatever. I will let your obvious lies speak for themselves. Anyone
can research them on the net themselves.

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:20:13 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:


The Chicago figure dates from 1995.

Are you completely unaware of all the
technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems
that makes you're argument completely ridiculous?

There have been no significant technological advances in this domain,
particularly since 1995. The last important advance was air conditioning, but
it places where it is not widely used, it is not much of a factor.


Right. No medical advances since 1995. Well, there goes all the
other guy's major European drug advances alone.

No one said no major advances, just that no major advances have been
shown in the treatment of heat related deaths between 1995 and 2003,

you are a tool.

and yes, I am bashing now because you have a ****ing thick skull, and
the only way to get something into it is to bash you over the head
with it.

Right, spoken like a true doctor that you claim to be. I avoid quacks
myself. You must be the guy they talk about when they ask "what do
you call the guy that came in last in medical school? Doctor."

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:21:22 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:32:33 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



Perhaps so you'll better comprehend:

I've can comprehend the fact easily the Yanks sat on their hands while
Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe

Oh poor Europe. Why don't you just stop killing each other and
relying on us?


totally different debate, you claimed that the US did not sit on its'
hands
when Europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini I pointed out that you
were wrong

Only you would think a neutral country at the time not acting for less
than a year and a half, not the two you said, would be sitting on its
hands,


where did I say 2 years?

When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands
for about 2 years. That's where.


compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?

so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when it
come to sitting on hands. Your point is what

You just said it.






a. less than a year and a half is nothing.


Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted

Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like
America when it saving your asses isn't it?

America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their self
interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour

Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for
any other reason. Brilliant.

so we agree that they sat on their hands.

Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently,
you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on
their hands,



Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act
of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States
to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise
dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems
vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article".
Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the
end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the
Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were
transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange
for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.

Reduces your stupid sitting on our hands crap doesn't it?


Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the
european war

Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest.
Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion
given. Where is the profit there genius?






c. in spite of this, we did and took care of the problem didn't we?
Just like Bosnia.

well I think those damn Russians had quite a bit to do with it

That's right. They were going to veto the action in the Security
Council, so it was done with NATO. Big contribution.

I was referring to WW2

Funny we were talking about Bosnia and the US. No one doubts what
Russia did, but go and read about Stalingrad and you will have hoped
both Stalin and Hitler would have lost, given what they both did.

Actually you keep raising Bosnia to divert attention from the fact that
America sat on its hands while Europe was threatened by Hitler et al

No to show that we take action while Europe sits endlessly on its ass

"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 07:21:22 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 11:32:33 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:


"John Kulp" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 09:30:30 +1000, "dechucka"
wrote:



Perhaps so you'll better comprehend:

I've can comprehend the fact easily the Yanks sat on their hands while
Hitler and Mussolini were threatening Europe

Oh poor Europe. Why don't you just stop killing each other and
relying on us?


totally different debate, you claimed that the US did not sit on its'
hands
when Europe was threatened by Hitler and Mussolini I pointed out that
you
were wrong

Only you would think a neutral country at the time not acting for less
than a year and a half, not the two you said, would be sitting on its
hands,


where did I say 2 years?

When you originally posted this and said that the US sat on its hands
for about 2 years. That's where.

really? your claim is bull**** because I didn't. NEXT



compared to Europe which sat on its hand for something like 12
years in Bosnia. But, then, who cares what you think?

so the europeans were worse in Bosnia han the Americans were in WW2 when
it
come to sitting on hands. Your point is what

You just said it.

So my position is correct, the yanks sat on their hands






a. less than a year and a half is nothing.


Well it was about 1/4 of the time the war lasted

Big deal. Solve you own problems. Funny how lots of you only like
America when it saving your asses isn't it?

America like normal only got involved in the war when it suited their
self
interest ie Japan blew up your fleet in Pearl Harbour

Gee, as if any country in their right mind gets involved in a war for
any other reason. Brilliant.

so we agree that they sat on their hands.

Nope, as I have shown, significant aid started in 1940. Apparently,
you think that if someone doesn't act on day 1 they are sitting on
their hands,

I must be ignorant I thought that Lend Lease was passed in early 1941




Lend-Lease came into existence with the passage of the Lend-Lease Act
of 11 March 1941, which permitted the President of the United States
to "sell, transfer title to, exchange, lease, lend, or otherwise
dispose of, to any such government [whose defense the President deems
vital to the defense of the United States] any defense article".
Roosevelt approved US $1 billion in Lend-Lease aid to Britain at the
end of October, 1941.

Earlier, there was an entirely different program in 1940, the
Destroyers for Bases Agreement whereby 50 USN destroyers were
transferred to the Royal Navy and the Royal Canadian Navy in exchange
for basing rights in the Caribbean and Newfoundland.

Reduces your stupid sitting on our hands crap doesn't it?


Lend lease was a delayed payment system so America could profit from the
european war

Oh sure moron. That's why we got all our money back with interest.
Whoops, that was less than than $8 billion back out of $50 billion
given. Where is the profit there genius?

you do know what the lend lease programme was all about don't you. The
recipients would pay for the arms after the war finished. The Americans
actually being forced to enter the war changed things






c. in spite of this, we did and took care of the problem didn't we?
Just like Bosnia.

well I think those damn Russians had quite a bit to do with it

That's right. They were going to veto the action in the Security
Council, so it was done with NATO. Big contribution.

I was referring to WW2

Funny we were talking about Bosnia and the US. No one doubts what
Russia did, but go and read about Stalingrad and you will have hoped
both Stalin and Hitler would have lost, given what they both did.

Actually you keep raising Bosnia to divert attention from the fact that
America sat on its hands while Europe was threatened by Hitler et al

No to show that we take action while Europe sits endlessly on its ass

well you didn't in WW2 or WW1 in fact

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 21:41:44 GMT, grant kinsley
wrote:



Oh, by the way, just this month, Crestor was shown to be the only
statin showing actual reduction of arterial plaque, just read it 10
minutes ago, so not only does Lipitor not do it as you claimed, but
Crestor does.

Then why did the NY Times report this, then:

"Other statin drugs, a class that includes Lipitor by Pfizer, Zocor
from Merck and Vytorin, which is sold by Merck and the Schering-Plough
Corporation, may lead to similar plaque regression, Dr. Nissen said.

Without, I might add, the additional risks of Crestor, as warned by
the FDA? And only at the highlest allowable dosage of Crestor, which
one would think, would heighten that risk? Especially since statins
are inherently toxic?

John Kulp writes:

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 06:38:57 +0200, Mxsmanic
wrote:

John Kulp writes:

So now you are wandering all the way back to 1955 to try to compare
something?

The Chicago figure dates from 1995.

Are you completely unaware of all the
technological advances and advancement medical knowledge and systems
that makes you're argument completely ridiculous?

There have been no significant technological advances in this domain,
particularly since 1995. The last important advance was air conditioning, but
it places where it is not widely used, it is not much of a factor.


Right. No medical advances since 1995. Well, there goes all the
other guy's major European drug advances alone.

You may have overlooked the words "significant" and "in this domain."
Treatment of heatstroke remains pretty much the same.