New pill may cut heart failure rate

[hhfarang]

And a somewhat opposing view from U.C. Berkeley:

http://www.wellnessletter.com/html/wl/2 ... d1107.html

And Medscape:

http://cme.medscape.com/viewarticle/558019

Both supposedly unbiased educational institutions that should not be promoting or selling anything.

[MorSage]

Confusion means you are genuinely developing an appreciation of the topic. People who know little tend to think they 'know it all'. When they know more about a topic and different findings / interpretations begin to surface 'confusion begins'. Then if they develop an understanding of why and how these differing opinions arose and what all the actual phenomena reported suggests a more developed understanding begins (along with new questions).

In regard to medical science, medical politics, the business of medicine and medical practice which some think all fall into line, nothing could be further from reality. Medical science is highly developed but only 15% of what a general practitioner actually dose in their office is based on this. Shocked, just think about how scientific it is to dispense an antibiotic for an apparent infection without culturing, identifying and sensitivity testing the offending agent, common yes, scientific no. Similarly, pain medicines given to mask pain without actually explicitedly identifying its' cause or acting to assist its' active resolution, common yes, scientifically and ethically sound no!

Most databanks / journals accept all kinds of articles that fulfill certain criteria and cannot function in an unbiased fashion, the clearest example is the 'unified theory of cardiovascular disease' proposed by Drs Pualing and Rath who between them have won 6 Nobel prises but could not get this theory published in a 'reputable journal' due to its anti 'one-size-fits-all medicine' recommendations which the pharmaceutical industry and business of medicine stake-holders actively suppress. To get their work published they had to publish their own book. As for universitys being unbiased sources of information 'never believe someone with an axe to grind' look the patents they hold, who funded the work in question and or who are the major benefactor/s of the reseach facility.

[MorSage]

Further, to my last post (just to clarify the issue of the utility of 'medical recommendations) be aware that the School of Public Health at Harvard has recently published that "CORRECT MEDICAL TREATMENT" is the third leading cause of death within the US!!! Correct is not a typographical error for incorrect. Henoius (my opinion) masters of public health who have had the political reigns of medicine for several decades have reduced medical practice to mere protocols and flowcharts of actions to be performed with cost and short-sighted measure as the cardinal arbitrators, while they skim off the so-called savings and sacrifice the difficult (needs a real doctor to manage the nuances) case "for the good of the herd'.

However, this practice actually reduces medicines ability to help the population as against masters of clinical practice (like me, who do everything for an individual regardless of cost and resource factors) who by going the extra mile for an individual patient tend to offer a higher standard of practice and strengthen medicines ability to serve the greater population but are politically out of vogue (politicians like apparent cost savings even if not real). Albeit this requires more specialised training and resources and doctors, technicians who are not overly occupied with how many patients they can see today, thier secretary's charms, new mercedes, etc.