Well said Joao  I totally agree.
And- that is something that we need to weigh as we push the FDA for faster approval
of drugs.  I still support  the speed-up but we have to recognize that it may lead
to further incidents like this one with Tasmar.

Charlie

Joao Paulo Carvalho wrote:

> Dear Wendy ,
>
> Always that engineers have to build a dam , a bridge or any such works they run
> in what it is called the "calculated risk" (better would be estimated risk) .
> This by definition should be as close as the up to date knowledge in engineering
> allows the designers to take in account possible situations in which the project
> will not be safe , or will fail .
>
> There is not a 100 per cent safe work and depending the cases the "calculated
> risk" can be small or bigger than another . Say for instances a dam built in
> region that is subjected to earthquakes of variable scale .The same may apply
> also to a project to build and send people to the moon as already was done .
>
> The point is the "calculated risk" has to be assumed because otherwise the
> project cannot be realized .
>
> Now , back to PD and other diseases the MDs may have to face their "calculated
> risk" if they wish to fight a disease knowing sometimes that there may have bad
> side effects or else other risks as a during a surgery . For instance in
> fighting cancer problems MDs may find necessary to use chemistry therapy even
> knowing the terrible side effects they may cause to their patients as long there
> is not a better procedure . Another risk may occur during a transplant surgery
> as concerned rejection etc.,etc.
>
> The problem with "snake oil" and some alternative medicine is that there is
> harder to people estimate any benefits , (or how much ), from them, or have any
> idea of the relation benefits in curing a disease and its "calculated risks" .
>
> The point is that errors are are impossible to detect all and the important
> thing to human knowledge is to LEARN from these errors as should be the case
> with a scientific procedure and as the history of the advance of the  human
> knowledge have demonstrated so far.
>
> Warm regards,
>
> Joao
>
> "Tebay, Wendy M" wrote:
>
> > Hey, I just had a thought.  With all this recent news regarding the safety
> > of Tasmar and it's potential for liver damage, it's rather ironic to me at
> > least, to see how calm and collected the discussion is regarding this new
> > info, especially when compared to the passions displayed about snake-oil
> > remedies, like the dreaded sandalwood.  Hmmm!  Kinda proves some of my
> > earlier points! (i.e., that in general, as a group, we are very accepting of
> > mainstream ideas/treatments, while quick to condemn many fringe ideas).
> > Sometimes this is valid, but I still find it ironic that, at least as the
> > evidence seems to be showing now, for some people, Tasmar is much worse and
> > much more deadly than any snake-oil.--
>
>    +----| Joao Paulo de Carvalho   |------ +
>    |         [log in to unmask]     |
>    +--------| Salvador-Bahia-Brazil |------+