 |
 |
just because people have gambled while on DAs (and sinemet) does not mean that there is a causal relationship. On the one hand, there is anecdotal information. On the other hand, there are two sets of researchers who really *wanted* to find an association - wanted it so badly that they and/or their institutions publicized one study that undeniably didn't even *try* to show an association and another that tried to pass off evidence of there *not* being an association as evidence that there *was* an association - and succeeded. One of the people you know was on requip/ropinerole (and sinemet?) - the statistically insignificant incidence of 1.5% was among those taking *Mirapex* (and sinemet) - not Requip (and sinemet) and not DAs (and sinemet) in general. None of Stacy's gamblers was taking Requip, and if you look at the incidence among takers of DAs in general, 9 people out of 1281, you find that it is only 0.7%, easily within the range Stacy cites for that among the general population, i.e., 0.3-1.3%. if anyone can show me how 1.5% within the mirapex-(and sinemet)-taking population is significant, i am all ears. if anyone can show me how 0.7% within the DA-(and sinemet)-taking population somehow reflects an incidence outside of the 0.3-1.3% range cited as normal by Stacy, i am all ears. if anyone can show me how Dodd, who actually withheld the information necessary to determine incidence, somehow demonstrated that there was a statistically significant incidence, i will buy all the swampland anyone cares to show me. until then, i stand by my assertion that these studies don't just fail to show an association, they actually either show that there is no association, or strongly imply that there is none. and given that the reports the conclusions of the FDA study are based on all [probably, according to one of the authors] came in as a result of the publicity of either the 2003 or 2005 study, that study is a farce. and yes, it IS bad news for the class action suits, and if i can get anyone at boehringer ingelheim to listen to me, or if i can get some noteworthy reporter to listen to me, it might strike a blow against this baseless attack on DAs and Mirapex in particular. "M.Schild" <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > they actually show that there is *not* an association between DAs and > gambling. thatīs not good news for the two or three class actions ( US, Canada, France) about agonists and gambling. I have at least one instance of someone who started gambling away his family savings and house whilst under Requip and now that he stopped Requip has NO gambling compulsions. Didnīt have any before. Lost his wife, etc in the process. The other committed suicide for the same reasons. Maryse cg JOhn 77,17 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn --------------------------------- ---------------------------------------------------------------------- To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask] In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn New Yahoo! Messenger with Voice. Call regular phones from your PC for low, low rates.