Steroids, SCI, why?

• Previous message: Steroids, SCI, why?
• Next message: Apologies - Remove my name from open letter.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]

 
In a message dated 4/17/2005 10:01:53 A.M. Central Standard Time,  
bryanboling at gmail.com writes:

if  there's no proven benefit, how did this
become the "standard" to begin  with?



.........   and one could rapidly ask, on some other areas where  there is a 
great deal of class I evidence, and beneficial outcome data, did a  particular 
treatment NOT become a "standard."    One of the  members of this list has 
spent a lifetime researching hypertonic saline,  especially in special groups of 
trauma patients, and even today it is not  approved by the FDA.   I have 
created a long list of "standards" which  are approved by national organizations 
in their courses, but for which there are  NO data to really demonstrate 
benefit, but that have been approved by the FDA,  etc, etc.     I also have a long 
list of things that  definitely HAVE benefit, but that some committees of 
national orgainzations, for  their own reasons, have helped to encourage FDA, and 
other organizations NOT to  approve.      
 
Go figure........................................................
 
k

• Previous message: Steroids, SCI, why?
• Next message: Apologies - Remove my name from open letter.
• Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]