Stents Can Kill

.

Originally posted by bsl4doc

originally posted by soficrow

You focus on protecting a $6 BILLION industry - not patients' rights to appropriate care.

When did I do this? I said that I'm happy the guidelines are being changed, that I support a noninvasive alternative when possible, and that there should be more transparency. Are you perhaps confusing me with the voices in your head that you argue with?

You are a liar, besides being rude, disrespectful, and insulting.

...Exactly what I'd expect from an industry shill whose arguments are based on junk science.

Here are the highlights of your contributions to this thread.

originally posted by bsdoc

13-9-2006 at 05:43 AM (post id: 2482722)

Considering the shear number of individuals who receive this treatment everyday, compounded by the fact that your source doesn't cite any real number just a "growing body of evidence", I think this is more alarmist crap.

Sorry, but this is just alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 04:55 PM (post id: 2484267)

...quoting an obscure risk attached to a very common precedure is indeed alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 06:21 PM (post id: 2484399)

The reason we use these stents now is that they are less invasive, allow for faster recovery, and reduce the trauma the body must recover from.

***

16-9-2006 at 05:20 AM (post id: 2489668)

...you are an arrogant jerk.

After posting numerous references and updates, I then responded to you as follows:

posted by soficrow

16-9-2006 at 06:36 AM (post id: 2489809)

bsdoc - I have quoted and linked extensively to world-reknowned experts. ...Please feel free to provide links to your own published work.

18-9-2006 at 02:52 AM (post id: 2493490)

bsdoc - You have insisted that your credentials are superior to mine, and to others posting on medical topics. You have belittled my contributions, calling me an "arrogant jerk," and claim I have no legitimate base for commenting on medical-political-economic events because I am not a doctor like you. ...I invited you to post your own published work to refute the work of experts I quoted and linked...

So? Bring it.

After a full month, you posted the only two references you contributed to this thread:

posted by bsdoc

19-11-2006 at 08:54 AM (post id: 2629016)

Two peer-reviewed medical journals articles I found after a brief PubMed search.

Again, your defense of the stent industry here plays exactly like Dr. Fred Singer's defense of the tobacco and oil industries.

Stents can kill.

The $6 Billion stent industry is based on a marketing campaign of lies, and bs doc.


.

You are a liar, besides being rude, disrespectful, and insulting.

...Exactly what I'd expect from an industry shill whose arguments are based on junk science.

Here are the highlights of your contributions to this thread.

And you are a snake oil salesman, rude, and equally insulting.

originally posted by bsdoc

13-9-2006 at 05:43 AM (post id: 2482722)

Considering the shear number of individuals who receive this treatment everyday, compounded by the fact that your source doesn't cite any real number just a "growing body of evidence", I think this is more alarmist crap.

Sorry, but this is just alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 04:55 PM (post id: 2484267)

...quoting an obscure risk attached to a very common precedure is indeed alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 06:21 PM (post id: 2484399)

The reason we use these stents now is that they are less invasive, allow for faster recovery, and reduce the trauma the body must recover from.

***

16-9-2006 at 05:20 AM (post id: 2489668)

...you are an arrogant jerk.

You realize only one of those quotes is actually from me, right? Now whose the liar?

After posting numerous references and updates, I then responded to you as follows:

posted by soficrow

16-9-2006 at 06:36 AM (post id: 2489809)

bsdoc - I have quoted and linked extensively to world-reknowned experts. ...Please feel free to provide links to your own published work.

18-9-2006 at 02:52 AM (post id: 2493490)

bsdoc - You have insisted that your credentials are superior to mine, and to others posting on medical topics. You have belittled my contributions, calling me an "arrogant jerk," and claim I have no legitimate base for commenting on medical-political-economic events because I am not a doctor like you. ...I invited you to post your own published work to refute the work of experts I quoted and linked...

So? Bring it.

After a full month, you posted the only two references you contributed to this thread:

posted by bsdoc

19-11-2006 at 08:54 AM (post id: 2629016)

Two peer-reviewed medical journals articles I found after a brief PubMed search.

Why are my resources somehow less than yours? I provided sources from peer-reviewed journals and you didn't even read them. Why should I debate someone who simply ignores all the evidence on the other side?

Stents can kill.

I agree, which is why the guidelines are being changed.

The $6 Billion stent industry is based on a marketing campaign of lies, and bs doc.

Welcome to the world of capitalism. Stay a while, will you?

Originally posted by bsl4doc

soficrow
You are a liar, besides being rude, disrespectful, and insulting.

...Exactly what I'd expect from an industry shill whose arguments are based on junk science.

Here are the highlights of your contributions to this thread.

originally posted by bsdoc

13-9-2006 at 05:43 AM (post id: 2482722)

Considering the shear number of individuals who receive this treatment everyday, compounded by the fact that your source doesn't cite any real number just a "growing body of evidence", I think this is more alarmist crap.

Sorry, but this is just alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 04:55 PM (post id: 2484267)

...quoting an obscure risk attached to a very common precedure is indeed alarmist.

***

13-9-2006 at 06:21 PM (post id: 2484399)

The reason we use these stents now is that they are less invasive, allow for faster recovery, and reduce the trauma the body must recover from.

***

16-9-2006 at 05:20 AM (post id: 2489668)

...you are an arrogant jerk.

You realize only one of those quotes is actually from me, right? Now whose the liar?

Every quote attributed to you is from you - the times and dates are posted. Easy to verify.

You are the liar.

You repeatedly dismissed the evidence, then suddenly, you tried to backtrack claiming you always said the guideline review is a good thing.

You did not.

Originally posted by bsdoc

Originally posted by soficrow

After posting numerous references and updates, I then responded to you as follows:

posted by soficrow

16-9-2006 at 06:36 AM (post id: 2489809)

bsdoc - I have quoted and linked extensively to world-reknowned experts. ...Please feel free to provide links to your own published work.

18-9-2006 at 02:52 AM (post id: 2493490)

bsdoc - You have insisted that your credentials are superior to mine, and to others posting on medical topics. You have belittled my contributions, calling me an "arrogant jerk," and claim I have no legitimate base for commenting on medical-political-economic events because I am not a doctor like you. ...I invited you to post your own published work to refute the work of experts I quoted and linked...

So? Bring it.

...After a full month, you posted the only two references you contributed to this thread:

posted by bsdoc

19-11-2006 at 08:54 AM (post id: 2629016)

Two peer-reviewed medical journals articles I found after a brief PubMed search.

Why are my resources somehow less than yours?

Because you posted only 2 references to "substantiate" all your insults against me and your dismissing experts' research.

I posted 3 pages of references for this topic.


The $6 Billion stent industry is based on a marketing campaign of lies, and bs doc.



.
format

[edit on 22-11-2006 by soficrow]

Millions face risk from drug-coated stents

The concern centers on devices called drug-eluting stents. Doctors implant them in the hearts of about a million Americans a year to treat coronary artery disease. They generate some $5 billion a year in sales for the two companies that make them. But they may be doing more harm than good.

***

Medical Device Update -- Are Coated Stents Lawsuits Going to Be Filed?

Recently, studies question whether the use of drug-eluting (coated) stents in patients with complex lesions, multiple vessel disease or diabetes increases rather than decreases the risk of restenosis. Just months ago, Wall Street thought these medical devices, sold by Johnson & Johnson, Boston Scientific and Abbott Laboratories, would generate $5.4 billion in annual sales. Long term studies reveal persistent incomplete healing of the stented vessel due to ongoing inflammatory and immunologic reaction in the vessel wall. This occurs because of the prolonged exposure and reaction to the drug. Instead, using a coated balloon during angioplasty, alone, may solve this problem.

***

Sector Wrap: Stent makers

Shares of drug-eluting stent makers fell Monday, as a Food and Drug Administration hearing on the safety of the devices draws nearer.

About a week ago, reports presented at the American Heart Association's annual meeting raised concerns about the effectiveness and safety of the devices, which have been linked to an increased risk of blood clots in some studies.

The FDA hearing will be held Dec. 7 and 8, and analyst Glenn J. Novarro said he expects shares of stent makers to move on related news. ...Novarro also thinks the FDA panel will "seek to rein in" non-label uses of the stents, and he expects the panel to request additional long-term data for the devices.

As manufacturers reposition, we will see more "new" and "improved" stents:

More Snake Oil?


.