This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 75.63.63.13 (talk) at 14:26, 25 April 2007 (you were told keep it here and to fuck your mother, you piece of shit government shill). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 14:26, 25 April 2007 by 75.63.63.13 (talk) (you were told keep it here and to fuck your mother, you piece of shit government shill)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff) Archives |
|---|
| Archive1–through Nov 11, 2004 |
| Archive2–Jan 5, 2005 |
| Archive3–Dec 1, 2006 |
| Archive 4–Apr 13, 2007 |
Rofecoxib
The first sentence of the reference to the WSJ article is deleted because it is NOT supported by what the WSJ reported. The WSJ reported that an e-mail was sent to NEJM staff (it doesn't specify who) from a PR representative the night before the EOC was released. The WSJ does NOT state that the EOC was either produced or timed based on any outside advice, and the entry stating otherwise is both false and not at all supported by the source material. The WSJ language is quite careful and explicit on this matter.
- You might have something about their careful language, but the article says:
- "Internal emails show the New England Journal's expression of concern was timed to divert attention from a deposition in which Executive Editor Gregory Curfman made potentially damaging admissions about the journal's handling of the Vioxx study. In the deposition, part of the Vioxx litigation, Dr. Curfman acknowledged that lax editing might have helped the authors make misleading claims in the article. ..."
- I think that the article might be a little sloppy in its characterizations, and you're right that it doesn't say that it was timed based on outside advice, but it was apparently timed to cast the editors in a good light; that appears to be the whole point of the article. I'll try to reqrite it a little. Cool Hand Luke 18:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
re: msg
you must understand that the sentence in question was originally added as a joke (by me, and i regret that), but later was restructured and even supported with a botched up "evidence" by someone with a vested interest of laundering the effects of msg. there is no evidence of the effects on humans being different from that on rats. the "supporting study" that i keep deleting is a non-scientific SURVEY. GIMME A BREAK! some freakin SURVEY is used to PROVE that msg does not cause obesity in people???
just flip a few weeks back in the history and you will see how the original subsection appeared.
- It was a scientific survey of 4938 ethnically Japanese men in Hawaii that was involved in the Honolulu heart program. In addition to interviews and self-reported symptoms, they drew blood measuring glucose and cholesterol levels in the participants. That said, I appreciate that you're not making personal attacks. Cool Hand Luke 00:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
well, i suppose, i spoke with a wrong person.... you're just as fucked up as the other user who posted the "study".
p.s. fuck you you fucking government shill
Yes! Eat a dick motherfucking faggot!