3 ms·

Then I suppose this web site is also a figment of our imagination: http://www.revatio.com/ http://www.revatio.com/ Is there any point at which the number of th

by hga 11y ago

Then I suppose this web site is also a figment of our imagination: http://www.revatio.com/ http://www.revatio.com/ Is there any point at which the number of things you claim to be true that we can trivially point out to be false might cause you to reconsider your apparent total disdain for the ethical drug industry? The same one that keeps people like me functional, and joeskyyy alive?

Retric 11y ago
Pulmonary hypertension While sildenafil improves some markers of disease in people with pulmonary arterial hypertension, it does not appear to affect the risk of death or serious side effects as of 2014.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil#Pulmonary_hypertension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil#Pulmonary_hypertens... I am going to call that a failure, you may disagree.
- hga 11y ago
  So is the study cited by Wikipedia in the half or greater of biomedicine studies that are just plain wrong, or the half that might be right? And is that true for all patients prescribed it? Down in the trenches, doctors don't pay so much attention to studies, as a new resident who's taken over the primary care of my condition noted. Instead, he depends on what his experienced supervising doctor has figured out over time, and of course what he's learning in the world of real patients and ... well, we really don't know how real the drugs are once they go generic, not when, for example, Indian companies, even when operating plants in the US, cargo cult their HPLC tests of batch purity and correctness. The supervising doctor I mentioned was always interested in my reports of apparent real world bio-equivalence as the two drugs he prescribed me went generic.
  - Retric 11y ago
    It's a meta study of the available literature, so I would put more weight behind it than a normal study. However I am not a MD. As to doctors listening to studies, IMO the good ones listen to meta studies. And specialists I have spoken with try and keep up with their area. Granted, there are only so many hours in the day, but there is also a fairly limited number of new drugs every year. PS: The FDA has only approved ~1,500 novel drugs in it's history. That's a lot but many of them are fairly irrelevant to most doctors.

by hga 11y ago

Retric 11y ago

Pulmonary hypertension While sildenafil improves some markers of disease in people with pulmonary arterial hypertension, it does not appear to affect the risk of death or serious side effects as of 2014.[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil#Pulmonary_hypertension https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sildenafil#Pulmonary_hypertens... I am going to call that a failure, you may disagree.

hga 11y ago
So is the study cited by Wikipedia in the half or greater of biomedicine studies that are just plain wrong, or the half that might be right? And is that true for all patients prescribed it? Down in the trenches, doctors don't pay so much attention to studies, as a new resident who's taken over the primary care of my condition noted. Instead, he depends on what his experienced supervising doctor has figured out over time, and of course what he's learning in the world of real patients and ... well, we really don't know how real the drugs are once they go generic, not when, for example, Indian companies, even when operating plants in the US, cargo cult their HPLC tests of batch purity and correctness. The supervising doctor I mentioned was always interested in my reports of apparent real world bio-equivalence as the two drugs he prescribed me went generic.
- Retric 11y ago
  It's a meta study of the available literature, so I would put more weight behind it than a normal study. However I am not a MD. As to doctors listening to studies, IMO the good ones listen to meta studies. And specialists I have spoken with try and keep up with their area. Granted, there are only so many hours in the day, but there is also a fairly limited number of new drugs every year. PS: The FDA has only approved ~1,500 novel drugs in it's history. That's a lot but many of them are fairly irrelevant to most doctors.