> Erik Reuter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >Deborah Harrell wrote:
> > Or to emulate your choice of wording:
> > When patients become customers, medicine is
> doomed.
> >
> > Vioxx.
> > Toenail fungus.
> > Major medical centers that offer unproven
> therapies as
> > viable alternatives.
<sniplet>
> You lost me at "Toenail fungus". Are we being given
> a test, which one of
> these does not belong? :-) My best guess is that you
> referring to the
> FDA's warning in 2001 about Lamisil possibly causing
> liver damage? If
> so, how is that the "customers" or "patients" fault?
> If the FDA has good
> evidence for danger, why is it still allowing
> Lamisil to be sold (and heavily advertised)?
Now you're going to make that song play in my head all
the way home!
The library's closing, so I can't give you the full
cite press, but mostly 'yep.' In the side effect
profile for Lamisil (and most if not all antifungals
that are taken internally), liver damage is listed.
This has to do with the cell membrane construction of
fungi, which IIRC has more in common with mammalian
cells...cholesterol-based compounds? (I'll look that
up.)
My point is more that it's a cosmetic problem if you
like to show off your feet (could be more serious for
the severely immunosuppressed, of course), yet the
advertising implies that because it's an infection (I
prefer to call it an infestation since it's
superficial, and perhaps b/c I've had a problem with
one
horse-stepped-upon-and-susequently-ripped-off-toenail!),
*it needs to be treated with an expensive and
potentially harmful* drug. It doesn't. But unless
you do your homework, you'd agree with that worried
lady in the ad who mutters "Infection...?"
Must go now!
Debbi
Closin' Down The Library Maru :)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
