Dear Bernard,
Am I the one that is missing the point?
“There is no need to repeat yourself. It adds nothing to a conversation to parrot the same thing over and over.
“Herb, you are the one who has missed the point. The fox is in charge of the chicken coop. The FDA and other disinterested third parties have concerns about Cyberonics efforts at investigating the deaths. There is no proof, but you prefer to be a CYBX pollyanna even when people's lives are at stake. But I guess it makes sense if you have a lot of money invested in them.” – Bernard
For your information one of the “disinterested” parties, “The FDA,” has received, acknowledged and approved the documentation or what you refer to as “proof.” Maybe a little education is also warranted on your part as to “The fox is in charge of the chicken coop” as it relates to drug studies.
“…it is possible for intelligent people to have read the sources you cited and still arrive at different conclusions…” – Bernard
I concur with your thought and the very reason I continue to research and educate myself and not limit or exclude my access to any resource and the reason I search for anyone willing to share with me.
“Nope. I'm not a big time investor. But I put much more credance into FDA concerns than partisan company employees.” Bernard
Hmm! Is that to be perceived as another one of those exclamations and/or innuendos on your part without research or knowledge? No need for me to repeat anything here as this is another of those “where is this going” exclamations in my perception only what does that have to do with getting to the source of the information which I do and was politely trying to direct you to.
“Perhaps you should share that with the FDA.” – Bernard
I have on a number of occasions. I’m sure Dr. Schultz is familiar with my correspondence, experiences, research, knowledge and advocacy for those that suffer from TRD.
“So far, it appears as if Cyberonics themselves are not capable of making their case effectively.” – Bernard
My perception of the above statement is that it is your opinion and is unsubstantiated. My response and statement of fact is that many of the issues addressed by the “disinterested” FDA have been resolved along with my previous statement regarding the deaths of VNS patients.
At some point I was hoping to read an opposing point of view backed by some documentation that is new and not “repeating” or rehashing issues already addressed and accepted by the “disinterested” FDA.
I can appreciate your naivety to think the FDA is a totally “disinterested” party as well as some of the other parties you allude to but I on the other hand have learned to always question studies, researchers, doctors etc for their underlying motivations and/or influences. I also have the perception that you have given little thought or concern to any vested interests the pharmaceutical industry might have in these issues.
Warmly,
Herb
.
Am I the one that is missing the point?
“There is no need to repeat yourself. It adds nothing to a conversation to parrot the same thing over and over.
“Herb, you are the one who has missed the point. The fox is in charge of the chicken coop. The FDA and other disinterested third parties have concerns about Cyberonics efforts at investigating the deaths. There is no proof, but you prefer to be a CYBX pollyanna even when people's lives are at stake. But I guess it makes sense if you have a lot of money invested in them.” – Bernard
For your information one of the “disinterested” parties, “The FDA,” has received, acknowledged and approved the documentation or what you refer to as “proof.” Maybe a little education is also warranted on your part as to “The fox is in charge of the chicken coop” as it relates to drug studies.
“…it is possible for intelligent people to have read the sources you cited and still arrive at different conclusions…” – Bernard
I concur with your thought and the very reason I continue to research and educate myself and not limit or exclude my access to any resource and the reason I search for anyone willing to share with me.
“Nope. I'm not a big time investor. But I put much more credance into FDA concerns than partisan company employees.” Bernard
Hmm! Is that to be perceived as another one of those exclamations and/or innuendos on your part without research or knowledge? No need for me to repeat anything here as this is another of those “where is this going” exclamations in my perception only what does that have to do with getting to the source of the information which I do and was politely trying to direct you to.
“Perhaps you should share that with the FDA.” – Bernard
I have on a number of occasions. I’m sure Dr. Schultz is familiar with my correspondence, experiences, research, knowledge and advocacy for those that suffer from TRD.
“So far, it appears as if Cyberonics themselves are not capable of making their case effectively.” – Bernard
My perception of the above statement is that it is your opinion and is unsubstantiated. My response and statement of fact is that many of the issues addressed by the “disinterested” FDA have been resolved along with my previous statement regarding the deaths of VNS patients.
At some point I was hoping to read an opposing point of view backed by some documentation that is new and not “repeating” or rehashing issues already addressed and accepted by the “disinterested” FDA.
I can appreciate your naivety to think the FDA is a totally “disinterested” party as well as some of the other parties you allude to but I on the other hand have learned to always question studies, researchers, doctors etc for their underlying motivations and/or influences. I also have the perception that you have given little thought or concern to any vested interests the pharmaceutical industry might have in these issues.
Warmly,
Herb
.