Posted by SLS on April 29, 2012, at 14:45:32
In reply to Re: ADs may do more Harm than Good -New Research paper » SLS, posted by zazenducke on April 29, 2012, at 6:53:35
> > Hi Phil.
> > You said much of what I was thinking and feeling, but that I didn't have the motivation to write. This is an old topic, and I have had my fill of addressing it the way I have in the past. However, I would be interested to see the actual research paper that is being referred to in the article introduced here. Perhaps I would have commented on it
> Well that is an option-I provided a link in the second post - Primum Non Nocere :)
Sorry. Thank you. I missed it.
"Primum Non Nocere." How would you apply this principle to cancer chemotherapy?
The judgment of treatment justification seems more complex to me than simply determining if there are any adverse effects associated with it. Dry mouth causes tooth decay. Shall we remove all drugs that produce xerostomia as a side effect? I guess lines must be drawn somewhere. Many of them are bound to be fuzzy.
As for the article, I find it to be cleverly written, but little more than conjecture and speculation supported by unsubstantiated suppositions. It reminds me of the stuff that Whitaker writes. He produces references, but uses only strategically placed excerpts that are out of context. Facts are used, just not all of them. Such use of medical literature can be quite compelling, but very much wrong. Those are my initial comments. They really don't prove anything, though. It would be quite a project to challenge the thesis of the paper by refuting each contention offered by the authors. I don't know that I am qualified to do this. Perhaps I'll pick out a few of the easier to recognize errors to work with. I hope someone who is qualified to respond to this paper will write an article or editorial to challenge it. It is still quite new. I am not swayed by the presence of valid facts interspersed throughout the treatise that serve to bolster its credibility. This is what I see here. Still, I have proven nothing. There are pro-drug papers that are driven by agenda just as there are anti-drug papers driven by agenda. I think that this is one of those papers.
Some see things as they are and ask why.
I dream of things that never were and ask why not.
- George Bernard Shaw