 |
 |
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 |------+