pro-HRT media coverage today in UK

Today the front page of the UK paper the Daily Mail, which
particularly popular with women, has as its headline "U-turn on the
risks of HRT- now experts say hormone therapy can CUT heart attack
danger." [It seems this article is not available on the Mail's
website.] It cites the study published in the Journal of the American
Medical Association (JAMA), and starts: "Millions of women may have
been scared into abandoning HRT unncessarily, it was revealed
yesterday. A US report which linked the treatment to heart disease and
strokes has been shown to be dramatically flawed. A detailed new look
at its research results revealed that hormone replacement therapy may
actually protect many patients agianst such illnesses." And so on and
so on.

Dr John Stevenson, an HRT expert from London's Royal Brompton Hospital
"launched a furious attack on the original researchers and warned that
women who stopped taking hormones would go on to suffer heart attacks
and other illnesses they 'didn't deserve'". (So that's me in the
danger zone then, not that I ever took them so did not stop.) The
article, which continues inside, has little mention of breast cancer
other than to quote Dr Stevenson as saying the link with breast cancer
is still unclear and any increased risk is "incredibly small". He's a
member of the British Menopause Society, which I seem to recall has
some links with HRT- manufacturers. He's calling on the Medicines and
Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which is resposible for drug
safety, to consider the new findings as a matter of urgency.

Also this morning a discussion on HRT on BBC Radio Four's Woman's
Hour, again criticising the move away from prescribing hormones. It
did interview doctors from both sides, but in general was more pro-
HRT.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womansho...7_15_mon.shtml

Guess the Woman's Hour coverage and Daily Mail report today both came
from a pro-HRT - and debunking WHI's original findings - PR campaign
by big pharma, which at least in the UK is having some success.

On Apr 9, 4:43 am, "calliandra...@yahoo.co.uk"
<calliandra...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Today the front page of the UK paper the Daily Mail, which
> particularly popular with women, has as its headline "U-turn on the
> risks of HRT- now experts say hormone therapy can CUT heart attack
> danger." [It seems this article is not available on the Mail's
> website.] It cites the study published in the Journal of the American
> Medical Association (JAMA), and starts: "Millions of women may have
> been scared into abandoning HRT unncessarily, it was revealed
> yesterday. A US report which linked the treatment to heart disease and
> strokes has been shown to be dramatically flawed. A detailed new look
> at its research results revealed that hormone replacement therapy may
> actually protect many patients agianst such illnesses." And so on and
> so on.
>
> Dr John Stevenson, an HRT expert from London's Royal Brompton Hospital
> "launched a furious attack on the original researchers and warned that
> women who stopped taking hormones would go on to suffer heart attacks
> and other illnesses they 'didn't deserve'". (So that's me in the
> danger zone then, not that I ever took them so did not stop.) The
> article, which continues inside, has little mention of breast cancer
> other than to quote Dr Stevenson as saying the link with breast cancer
> is still unclear and any increased risk is "incredibly small". He's a
> member of the British Menopause Society, which I seem to recall has
> some links with HRT- manufacturers. He's calling on the Medicines and
> Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, which is resposible for drug
> safety, to consider the new findings as a matter of urgency.
>
> Also this morning a discussion on HRT on BBC Radio Four's Woman's
> Hour, again criticising the move away from prescribing hormones. It
> did interview doctors from both sides, but in general was more pro-
> HRT.
>
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/womansho...7_15_mon.shtml
>
> Guess the Woman's Hour coverage and Daily Mail report today both came
> from a pro-HRT - and debunking WHI's original findings - PR campaign
> by big pharma, which at least in the UK is having some success.


Link to the article:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...n_page_id=1770

"U-turn on the risks of HRT as experts say it CAN cut heart disease"

If ever a headline *screamed* for a re-write:

Urine for a Surprise! Ewe-turn on the risks of Hor(se)mone Replacement
Therapy: Mare Reduce Heart Disease.

Jokes aside, this article reads like an info-mercial for Wyeth. The
data studied is five years old - and the details have been available
to these "scientists" the whole time. One wonders why they didn't
scrutinize the data before? If the conclusions drawn by the WHI
researchers are such an "affront to science", why weren't the "flaws"
spotted in days or weeks, rather than in years?

Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
someone tried to introduce a generic version.

Harpo

calliandra722@yahoo.co.uk <calliandra722@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

> Today the front page of the UK paper the Daily Mail, which
> particularly popular with women, has as its headline "U-turn on the
> risks of HRT- now experts say hormone therapy can CUT heart attack
> danger."

I recently read "The Greatest Experiment Ever Performed on Women" by
Barbara Seaman. It was written shortly after the WHI study and
discussed the long and checkered history of HT. She said that it
wouldn't take long for the pro HT forces to figure out an angle to start
selling HT to a broad range of women again. I thought, when I read the
book, that she was wrong, that the study was big enough and well enough
done to keep this from happening. But I am really seeing stirrings.

I also asked my DH to sell his Wyeth stock after reading the book. What
a sloppy, dishonest company.

<HarpoThalmus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...

>
> Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> Harpo

I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
unproven.

Roseanne

foggydoggy wrote:

> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> unproven.

Here's an interesting article about compounding pharmacies, and
their battles with the FDA. Sounds like some pluses and minuses
on both sides regarding the CPs and how they do business.
http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in...l=1&thispage=1
or
http://snipurl.com/1ftgx

And here's what the article says about Wyeth:
"Pharmaceutical companies have pushed for better standards, too.
Wyeth filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2005 seeking
better regulation of compounders who offer hormone therapies such
as the kind Suzanne Somers champions. Wyeth, which makes estrogen
hormone treatments that have been dogged by safety concerns, said
the compounders make claims about their products that have never
been validated in clinical trials."

I'm no fan of Suzanne Somers... but I splorked coffee all over my
screen when I read that Wyeth whined about clinical trials.
IIRC, they fully expected the WHI to give a glowing report for
Premarin, and they've been squirming ever since the results came
out in 2002.

I haven't looked too much at the treatment of the latest WHI
results by the popular press in the US, except to note a
disparity between Gina Kolata's balanced coverage in NY Times and
Erin Something's more pro-HT report in a different newspaper. I
guess I should take a look at the NY Post and it's ilk...

FurPaw
--
My family values don't involve depleted uranium.

To reply, unleash the dog.

On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> > Harpo
>
> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> unproven.
>
> Roseanne


You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
the subject:

http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html

Quotes From the article:

Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones.. The FDA
considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive from the
marketplace."

[...]

Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
that it is the physician’ choice to prescribe this; they contend itis
the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. So the
only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group� petition the
FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
requested an injunction against the ability to market this
alternative.� Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there aredrug
companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
females to have any options whatsoever.�

Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says that he
and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,� he says.
“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
financially tied to these people�so the only motive they have is
maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
of these so-called “experts� to support this, when the WHI has shown
that there’s a problem�

<end of quotes>

It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’t do, no one
that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
monopoly.

It’s also pretty clear that they only “health� concern Wyeth has is
their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
rest of the drug giants.

Harpo

On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>
>
>
> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> > Harpo
>
> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> unproven.
>
> Roseanne


You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
the subject:

http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html

Quotes From the article:

"Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones.. The FDA
considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive from the
marketplace."

[...]

Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
that it is the physician’s choice to prescribe this; they contend it
is the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. So the
only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group� petition the
FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
requested an injunction against the ability to market this
alternative.� Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there aredrug
companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
females to have any options whatsoever.�

Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says that he
and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,� he says.
“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
financially tied to these people�so the only motive they have is
maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
of these so-called “experts� to support this, when the WHI has shown
that there’s a problem�

<end of quotes>

It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’t do, no one
that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
extremely lucrative monopoly.

It’s also pretty clear that they only “health� concern Wyeth has is
their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
rest of the drug giants.

Harpo

FurPaw <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote:

> foggydoggy wrote:
>
> > I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> > Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> > pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> > unproven.
>
> Here's an interesting article about compounding pharmacies, and their
> battles with the FDA. Sounds like some pluses and minuses on both sides
> regarding the CPs and how they do business.
> http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in.../1175405857943
> 20.xml&coll=1&thispage=1 or http://snipurl.com/1ftgx
>
> And here's what the article says about Wyeth: "Pharmaceutical companies
> have pushed for better standards, too.
> Wyeth filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2005 seeking
> better regulation of compounders who offer hormone therapies such
> as the kind Suzanne Somers champions. Wyeth, which makes estrogen
> hormone treatments that have been dogged by safety concerns, said
> the compounders make claims about their products that have never
> been validated in clinical trials."
>
> I'm no fan of Suzanne Somers... but I splorked coffee all over my
> screen when I read that Wyeth whined about clinical trials.

Yeah, only Wyeth is allowed to do the unsafe and unproven thing. . .

On Apr 9, 11:17 am, emma_a...@mac.com (Emma Anne) wrote:
> FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > foggydoggy wrote:
>
> > > I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> > > Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> > > pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> > > unproven.
>
> > Here's an interesting article about compounding pharmacies, and their
> > battles with the FDA. Sounds like some pluses and minuses on both sides
> > regarding the CPs and how they do business.
> >http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in...ess-0/11754058...
> > 20.xml&coll=1&thispage=1 orhttp://snipurl.com/1ftgx
>
> > And here's what the article says about Wyeth: "Pharmaceutical companies
> > have pushed for better standards, too.
> > Wyeth filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2005 seeking
> > better regulation of compounders who offer hormone therapies such
> > as the kind Suzanne Somers champions. Wyeth, which makes estrogen
> > hormone treatments that have been dogged by safety concerns, said
> > the compounders make claims about their products that have never
> > been validated in clinical trials."
>
> > I'm no fan of Suzanne Somers... but I splorked coffee all over my
> > screen when I read that Wyeth whined about clinical trials.
>
> Yeah, only Wyeth is allowed to do the unsafe and unproven thing. .

Bingo!

Harpo

I scanned Suzanne Somers book, Ageless, just out of curiosity and although
I've heard reports about how bad the book is, you really have to look at it
to see how REALLY, REALLY bad it is.

Examples of some of her comments:
" I know I need massive amounts of estrogen to feel good and be in a happy
mood."

" When you are in perimenopause, your natural rhythm is off: that is why
perimneopause is a dangerous time for women.

" Yes, I realize there will always be the woman who sails through menopause
and hardly notices it.I have a hard time believing it, but let's just say
that woman exists here & there,"

" Menopause should be called egglessness.You're in serious hormonal
decline.Hormone decline is exactly that: a decline in you.You cease to be
the the vital vibrant person you have been.It's as though your soul gets
sucked out."

" Hormone imbalance is a backdrop for cancer."

"Imbalanced hormones are at the root of cancer."

She goes on to cite tragic examples of women whose hormonal imbalance
impacted their lives: Andrea Yates, a major player in the fashion world who
took to bed in peri- went nuts - husband ditched her- could have beeen
avoided with bioidentical HT.

The synthetics are drugs but not her bioidenticals,so just imagine taking
something so good to make you feel at your best and the best thing is, IT'S
NOT A DRUG!

My God, how many women will read this dangerous crap then run to their docs
for the same high dose treatment. Somers had a hysterectomy for endometrial
hyperplasia,doesn't she connect this with massive estrogen doses? And her
breast cancer????? Although she looks great for her age, it's with the
assistance of plastic surgery and lots of make-up.How long does she think
she will be able to delay the aging process with reproductive levels of
hormones?

Not only is this scary, it's also very sad,having a glimpse into the psyche
of a woman who's so dependant upon her looks that she'll sacrifice her long
term health.

Roseanne

"FurPaw" <furrealpawdog@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Bsadncp0ea8t74fbnZ2dnUVZ_rKvnZ2d@comcast.com. ..
> foggydoggy wrote:
>
>> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
>> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
>> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
>> unproven.
>
> Here's an interesting article about compounding pharmacies, and their
> battles with the FDA. Sounds like some pluses and minuses on both sides
> regarding the CPs and how they do business.
> http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in...l=1&thispage=1
> or
> http://snipurl.com/1ftgx
>
> And here's what the article says about Wyeth:
> "Pharmaceutical companies have pushed for better standards, too. Wyeth
> filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2005 seeking better regulation of
> compounders who offer hormone therapies such as the kind Suzanne Somers
> champions. Wyeth, which makes estrogen hormone treatments that have been
> dogged by safety concerns, said the compounders make claims about their
> products that have never been validated in clinical trials."
>
> I'm no fan of Suzanne Somers... but I splorked coffee all over my screen
> when I read that Wyeth whined about clinical trials. IIRC, they fully
> expected the WHI to give a glowing report for Premarin, and they've been
> squirming ever since the results came out in 2002.
>
> I haven't looked too much at the treatment of the latest WHI results by
> the popular press in the US, except to note a disparity between Gina
> Kolata's balanced coverage in NY Times and Erin Something's more pro-HT
> report in a different newspaper. I guess I should take a look at the NY
> Post and it's ilk...
>
> FurPaw
> --
> My family values don't involve depleted uranium.
>
> To reply, unleash the dog.

foggydoggy <foggydoggy@cogeco.ca> wrote:

>
> The synthetics are drugs but not her bioidenticals,so just imagine taking
> something so good to make you feel at your best and the best thing is, IT'S
> NOT A DRUG!

I picked up several menopause books at the library, and one of them was
a "bioidentical" book (not SS's, but some doctor person). I have read
things more insulting to my intelligence - but not many.

On Apr 9, 10:06 am, FurPaw <furrealpaw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> foggydoggy wrote:
> > I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> > Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> > pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> > unproven.
>
> Here's an interesting article about compounding pharmacies, and
> their battles with the FDA. Sounds like some pluses and minuses
> on both sides regarding the CPs and how they do business.http://www.nj.com/business/ledger/in...ess-0/11754058...
> orhttp://snipurl.com/1ftgx
>
> And here's what the article says about Wyeth:
> "Pharmaceutical companies have pushed for better standards, too.
> Wyeth filed a citizen petition with the FDA in 2005 seeking
> better regulation of compounders who offer hormone therapies such
> as the kind Suzanne Somers champions. Wyeth, which makes estrogen
> hormone treatments that have been dogged by safety concerns, said
> the compounders make claims about their products that have never
> been validated in clinical trials."

As the article I posted earlier mentioned, these bioidentical
compounds are naturally occurring plant-derived substances, and are
therefor *unpatentable* - this is why these have never been
"validated" in clinical trials, as Wyeth whines above - because
clinical trials are damned expensive, and as no multinational drug
giant is drooling over the prospect of making $billions from
bioidenticals, no one can (or will) fund such trials.

> I'm no fan of Suzanne Somers... but I splorked coffee all over my
> screen when I read that Wyeth whined about clinical trials.
> IIRC, they fully expected the WHI to give a glowing report for
> Premarin, and they've been squirming ever since the results came
> out in 2002.
>
> I haven't looked too much at the treatment of the latest WHI
> results by the popular press in the US, except to note a
> disparity between Gina Kolata's balanced coverage in NY Times and
> Erin Something's more pro-HT report in a different newspaper. I
> guess I should take a look at the NY Post and it's ilk...

You might find this interesting:

<quote>

The research -- by Dr Jacques Rossouw, of the Women's Health
Initiative Branch, who also headed the 2002 study -- found that
hormone therapy had a neutral effect on women soon after menopause.

"The findings are consistent with current recommendations that hormone
therapy be used in the short term for relief of moderate or severe
vaso-motor symptoms, but not in the longer term for prevention of
cardiovascular disease," the researchers concluded."

</quote>

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sto...04-662,00.html

>From the above, I gather that the researchers themselves are NOT
changing their stance of recommending using the smallest amount
possible for the shortest term possible. This media blitz seems to be
pure hype designed to lure more women back to consuming the product of
Wyeth's lavatory laboratory.

Harpo

On 9 Apr 2007 10:52:55 -0700, HarpoThalmus@gmail.com wrote:

>On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
>> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
>> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
>> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
>> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>>
>> > Harpo
>>
>> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
>> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
>> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
>> unproven.
>>
>> Roseanne
>
>
>You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
>the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
>the subject:
>
>http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html
>
>Quotes From the article:
>
>"Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
>structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
>physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones. The FDA
>considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
>source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
>hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
>It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive from the
>marketplace."
>

The information in the quote you provided above is nonsense -- garbage
-- and has nothing to do with the compounding pharmacy question.

Premarin is from a natural source, so is unpatentable. The 'bio
identical' synthetic estrogens made from plant sources that have been
around for over 20 years are either off patent or generic. The thing
is that Wyeth fought tooth and nail to keep anyone from producing a
generic form of natural Premarin and succeeded.. The synthetic bio
equivalent forms of Premarin can't call themselve generic, so the
synthetic bio equivalent forms of Premarin had to go through all the
hoops and testing to get FDA approval* because they are not from a
generic formula. IOW, in this case, being a natural product working in
Wyeth's favour, not otherwise.

*the company back in the '90's that had to do this was Duramed, I'm
not certain what the current company or drug name is at the moment.

Kathryn


>[...]
>
>Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
>that it is the physician’s choice to prescribe this; they contend it
>is the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. So the
>only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group” petition the
>FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
>requested an injunction against the ability to market this
>alternative.” Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
>the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
>guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
>hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
>insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
>is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there are drug
>companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
>nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
>able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
>overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
>females to have any options whatsoever.”
>
>Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
>University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says that he
>and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
>to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,” he says.
>“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
>supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
>financially tied to these people”so the only motive they have is
>maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
>of these so-called “experts” to support this, when the WHI has shown
>that there’s a problem”
>
><end of quotes>
>
>It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’t do, no one
>that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
>extremely lucrative monopoly.
>
>It’s also pretty clear that they only “health” concern Wyeth has is
>their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
>rest of the drug giants.
>
>Harpo
>
>

<HarpoThalmus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
> Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> Harpo

If the women this substance is marketed to were made aware of the suffering
of the horses, the living creatures, that are used to manufacture it, sales
would plummet.
Sales of HRT are already down, thank God, primarily because of the health
issues, but it's shocking that women who down these pills prescribed by
old-time OB-GYNs are completely unaware of what goes into making them.

"kathryn" <kdrozdik@telus.net> wrote in message
news:674l13dg9ufkd6st35dlg404dbv32a7rhf@4ax.com...
> On 9 Apr 2007 10:52:55 -0700, HarpoThalmus@gmail.com wrote:
>
>>On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>>> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
>>> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
>>> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
>>> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
>>> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>>>
>>> > Harpo
>>>
>>> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
>>> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
>>> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
>>> unproven.
>>>
>>> Roseanne
>>
>>
>>You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
>>the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
>>the subject:
>>
>>http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html
>>
>>Quotes From the article:
>>
>>"Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
>>structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
>>physiologic responses as the bodyâ?Ts natural hormones. The FDA
>>considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
>>source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
>>hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
>>It is these substances that Wyeth's petition seeks to drive from the
>>marketplace."
>>
>
> The information in the quote you provided above is nonsense -- garbage
> -- and has nothing to do with the compounding pharmacy question.
>
> Premarin is from a natural source, so is unpatentable.

http://www.project-aware.org/Managin..._Opinion.shtml

Premarin *was* patented.
"Premarin is a patented drug made up of conjugated estrogens obtained from
the urine of pregnant mares (PREgnant MARes' urINE, or PMU)

Manufactured exclusively by Wyeth-Ayerst at Ayerst Organics Ltd. In Brandon,
Manitoba, Canada, Premarin is Canada's most lucrative pharmaceutical export
to date. It is the most widely prescribed drug in the United States and
holds 80% of the estrogen supplement market worldwide.

Premarin was first marketed for menopause in 1942. By 1972, Premarin tablets
were certified by the FDA as effective for treating menopause, and in 1986,
based on studies conducted by Wyeth, the FDA approved Premarin for treatment
of osteoporosis.

Premarin has become the drug of choice for hormone replacement therapy in
the '90s. Some estimates claim that close to nine million women are
currently taking Premarin (about a third of the thirty million plus post
menopausal women in the United States are on estrogen replacement therapy,
and of them, about 80% use Premarin). Wyeth's revenues from Premarin are
currently $1billion a year and rising."

>On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
>> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...

>> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
>> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
>> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
>> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
>> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.

>> > Harpo

>> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
>> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
>> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
>> unproven.

>> Roseanne

>You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
>the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
>the subject:

>http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html

>Quotes From the article:

>"Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
>structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
>physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones. The FDA
>considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
>source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
>hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
>It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive from the
>marketplace."

The information in the quote you provided above is nonsense -- garbage
-- and has nothing to do with the compounding pharmacy question.

Premarin is from a natural source, so is unpatentable. The 'bio
identical' synthetic estrogens made from plant sources that have been
around for over 20 years are either off patent or generic. The thing
is that Wyeth fought tooth and nail to keep anyone from producing a
generic form of natural Premarin and succeeded.. The synthetic bio
equivalent forms of Premarin can't call themselve generic, so the
synthetic bio equivalent forms of Premarin had to go through all the
hoops and testing to get FDA approval* because they are not from a
generic formula. IOW, in this case, being a natural product working in
Wyeth's favour, not otherwise.

*the company back in the '90's that had to do this was Duramed, I'm
not certain what the current company or drug name is at the moment.

Kathryn

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
>[...]

>Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
>that it is the physician’s choice to prescribe this; they contend it
>is the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. Sothe
>only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group� petition the
>FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
>requested an injunction against the ability to market this
>alternative.� Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
>the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
>guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
>hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
>insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
>is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there are drug
>companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
>nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
>able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
>overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
>females to have any options whatsoever.�

>Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
>University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says thathe
>and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
>to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,� he says.
>“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
>supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
>financially tied to these people�so the only motive they have is
>maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
>of these so-called “experts� to support this, when the WHIhas shown
>that there’s a problem�

><end of quotes>

>It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’tdo, no one
>that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
>extremely lucrative monopoly.

>It’s also pretty clear that they only “health� concern Wyeth has is
>their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
>rest of the drug giants.

>Harpo


Reply Reply to author Forward Rate this post: Text for clearing
space
Cancel


Send Discard


From:
HarpoThalmus@gmail.com
To:
Cc:
Followup To:

Add Cc | Add Followup-to | Edit Subject
Subject:
Send Discard






12. HarpoThal...@gmail.com
View profile
More options Apr 9, 10:55 am
Newsgroups: alt.support.menopause
From: HarpoThal...@gmail.com
Date: 9 Apr 2007 10:55:01 -0700
Local: Mon, Apr 9 2007 10:55 am
Subject: Re: pro-HRT media coverage today in UK
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Remove | Report this message | Find messages by this author
On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:

- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message

> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...

> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.

> > Harpo

> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> unproven.

> Roseanne

You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
the subject:

http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html

Quotes From the article:

Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones.. The FDA
considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive from the
marketplace."

[...]

Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
that it is the physician’ choice to prescribe this; they contend itis
the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. So the
only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group� petition the
FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
requested an injunction against the ability to market this
alternative.� Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there aredrug
companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
females to have any options whatsoever.�

Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says that he
and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,� he says.
“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
financially tied to these people�so the only motive they have is
maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
of these so-called “experts� to support this, when the WHI has shown
that there’s a problem�

<end of quotes>

It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’t do, no one
that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
monopoly.

It’s also pretty clear that they only “health� concern Wyeth has is
their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
rest of the drug giants.

Harpo

Reply Reply to author Forward





13. Emma Anne
View profile
More options Apr 9, 9:19 am
On Apr 9, 1:58 pm, kathryn <kdroz...@telus.net> wrote:
> On 9 Apr 2007 10:52:55 -0700, HarpoThal...@gmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Apr 9, 9:39 am, "foggydoggy" <foggydo...@cogeco.ca> wrote:
> >> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googleg roups.com...
>
> >> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> >> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> >> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> >> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> >> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> >> > Harpo
>
> >> I'm not sure if it's Wyeth,probably is,since they are the makers of
> >> Premarin/PremPro, but there'a a pharmaceutical who's trying to prevent
> >> pharmacies from compounding the bioidenticals. They're too unsafe and
> >> unproven.
>
> >> Roseanne
>
> >You're right Roseanne, it is Wyeth - protecting their turf ($$$) under
> >the guise of protecting women's health. Here's a link to an article on
> >the subject:
>
> >http://www.medaus.com/p/208.html
>
> >Quotes From the article:
>
> >"Bioidentical hormones are substances with the exact same molecular
> >structure as those made in the human body, and produce the same
> >physiologic responses as the body’s natural hormones. The FDA
> >considers bioidentical hormones to be natural regardless of their
> >source, and as a result, they cannot be patented. Bioidentical
> >hormones that are plant derived have been available for over 20 years.
> >It is these substances that Wyeth’s petition seeks to drive fromthe
> >marketplace."
>
> The information in the quote you provided above is nonsense -- garbage

Ok. Whitch parts of the above are “nonsense� and “garbage�, and more
importantly, why? If you believe the information is incorrect, tell us
why, and then enlighten us as to the truth. Otherwise your contentions
lack credibility.

> -- and has nothing to do with the compounding pharmacy question.

Apparently you didn’t read the rest of the quote I provided, let alone
the entire article - which did address Wyeth’s attack on compounding
pharmacies.

BTW, don’t be misled into believing that I might be in favor of (or
pushing) so-called bioidentical hormones - I have no dog in that hunt
- the only reason I cited the article was that it substantiates
Roseanne’s statement that Wyeth was attacking compounding pharmacies.

> Premarin is from a natural source, so is unpatentable.

Premarin has indeed been protected under one or more patents. While
the ‘natural source’ may be unpatentable, patents “may cover products,
formulations, processes for, or intermediates useful in the
manufacture of products or the uses of products�... And that’s
straight from the Wyeth horse’s mouth.

http://sec.edgar-online.com/2006/02/...9/Section2.asp

> The 'bio
> identical' synthetic estrogens made from plant sources that have been
> around for over 20 years are either off patent or generic.

Ok. So?

> The thing
> is that Wyeth fought tooth and nail to keep anyone from producing a
> generic form of natural Premarin and succeeded..

Premarin’s original patent expired years ago, but not Wyeth’s
monopoly. Wyeth’s strategy to further protect their cash cow was to
petition the FDA and similar agencies, claiming that because generics
or competitors were not EXACTLY THE SAME as Premarin, they would be
either unsafe or ineffective.

Ironic, don’t you think?

They further used bad science, misrepresented facts, made wild claims,
conned and ‘bribed’ citizens groups and political organizations to
write petitions and put pressure on the FDA - meanwhile schmoozing
politicians and Coffeeing with Clinton (and contributing 50k to the
DNC), pressuring the FDA from the top down.

(Mafiosos and mob leaders marvel at Weyth’s “influence�.

> The synthetic bio
> equivalent forms of Premarin can't call themselve generic, so the
> synthetic bio equivalent forms of Premarin had to go through all the
> hoops and testing to get FDA approval* because they are not from a
> generic formula. IOW, in this case, being a natural product working in
> Wyeth's favour, not otherwise.
>
> *the company back in the '90's that had to do this was Duramed, I'm
> not certain what the current company or drug name is at the moment.
>
> Kathryn


Again, the reason that I cited the article in my previous post was to
confirm Roseanne’s speculation that Wyeth was attacking compounding
pharmacies to serve their corporate interests. Wyeth has regularly
demonstrated that they will viciously attack anyone and anything that
threatens their bottom line - which has been hemorrhaging profusely
ever since the WHI study was cancelled.

What Wyeth DOESN’T demonstrate is any genuine concern for the health
of it’s customers, or any interest in honesty. You can bet that the
impetus for the “reexamination� of the WHI study evidence was
“inspired� by Wyeth.

Harpo




> >[...]
>
> >Russell adds that in the Wyeth petition, “they do not even mention
> >that it is the physician’s choice to prescribe this; they contend it
> >is the pharmacist trying to push it down the consumer’s throat. So the
> >only way they can attack is to have a “citizen’s group� petition the
> >FDA to take this off the market. In this petition they flat out
> >requested an injunction against the ability to market this
> >alternative.� Russell says that any prescription written has to meet
> >the guidelines of state boards of pharmacy, as well as federal
> >guidelines. And, he explains, each of the ingredients of bioidentical
> >hormone replacement therapy is approved: “They are recognized by
> >insurance companies, there are no restrictions on them, so to state it
> >is ‘untested and unfounded’ is ludicrous, because there are drug
> >companies that have been producing these components for years. In a
> >nutshell, if this comes to pass, no physician or pharmacist will be
> >able to prescribe or compound bioidentical hormone therapy. The
> >overall danger is no freedom of choice; it would close the door for
> >females to have any options whatsoever.�
>
> >Eldred Taylor, M.D., Assistant Clinical Professor of OB/GYN, Emory
> >University , and Director of the Women’s Wellness Group, says that he
> >and others are attempting to counter the Wyeth action. “We’re trying
> >to organize a little grassroots effort to petition the FDA,� he says.
> >“Wyeth has all these organizations backing them that are financially
> >supported by them. It looks impressive, but most of the members are
> >financially tied to these people�so the only motive they have is
> >maintaining that financial source. It damages the credibility of some
> >of these so-called “experts� to support this, when the WHI has shown
> >that there’s a problem�
>
> ><end of quotes>
>
> >It’s pretty obvious that there is nothing that Wyeth won’t do, no one
> >that they won’t try to bribe or threaten in order to maintain their
> >extremely lucrative monopoly.
>
> >It’s also pretty clear that they only “health� concern Wyeth has is
> >their corporate financial heath. No doubt the same can be said for the
> >rest of the drug giants.
>
> >Harpo

<HarpoThalmus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176178724.799980.195360@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...



If you're serious about utilizing Usenet, you need to abandon
Google groups, get a real newsreader, and learn some
Usenet etiquette.

On Apr 9, 9:44 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176178724.799980.195360@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> If you're serious about utilizing Usenet, you need to abandon
> Google groups, get a real newsreader, and learn some
> Usenet etiquette.

I like Google.

And how do you imagine that I'm broaching Usenet etiquette? The
double post? Should I have made a *third* post post to apologize for
the second?

Harpo

On Apr 9, 8:11 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>
> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>
> > Harpo
>
> If the women this substance is marketed to were made aware of the suffering
> of the horses, the living creatures, that are used to manufacture it, sales
> would plummet.
> Sales of HRT are already down, thank God, primarily because of the health
> issues, but it's shocking that women who down these pills prescribed by
> old-time OB-GYNs are completely unaware of what goes into making them.

What would you suggest they use as a replacement?

Harpo

On Apr 9, 9:44 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1176178724.799980.195360@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>
> If you're serious about utilizing Usenet, you need to abandon
> Google groups, get a real newsreader, and learn some
> Usenet etiquette.

Just saw the garbage in one of my posts... By god, you may be right!

Harpo

<HarpoThalmus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176181232.023178.43370@e65g2000hsc.googlegro ups.com...
> On Apr 9, 8:11 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176134824.401495.44630@n59g2000hsh.googlegro ups.com...
>>
>> > Wyeth, maker Premarin and PremPro has lost billions during the
>> > interim. They've fought tooth and nail over the decades to preserve
>> > their *exclusive* right to market horse piss - raising every
>> > imaginable objection with the FDA anytime a competitor arose, or
>> > someone tried to introduce a generic version.
>>
>> > Harpo
>>
>> If the women this substance is marketed to were made aware of the
>> suffering
>> of the horses, the living creatures, that are used to manufacture it,
>> sales
>> would plummet.
>> Sales of HRT are already down, thank God, primarily because of the health
>> issues, but it's shocking that women who down these pills prescribed by
>> old-time OB-GYNs are completely unaware of what goes into making them.
>
> What would you suggest they use as a replacement?
>
> Harpo

Replacement? Nothing. Accept that the body is aging, gracefully move onto
the next stage of life, and get used to it!

On Tue, 10 Apr 2007 03:07:03 GMT, "deja.blues" <deja.blues@gmail.com>
wrote:

>
>"kathryn" <kdrozdik@telus.net> wrote in message
>news:674l13dg9ufkd6st35dlg404dbv32a7rhf@4ax.com.. .
>
>> Premarin is from a natural source, so is unpatentable.
>
>http://www.project-aware.org/Managin..._Opinion.shtml
>
>Premarin *was* patented.
>"Premarin is a patented drug made up of conjugated estrogens obtained from
>the urine of pregnant mares (PREgnant MARes' urINE, or PMU)
>
FYI -- a rather old but very interesting newsletter article now from
October 1999. (seems like yesterday) . The WHI study must have really
hurt copycat hormone drugs like Cenestin. What's it called now?

http://www.massgeneral.org/pharmacy/...gen%20Saga.htm

>It's All in the Name:
>Cenestin®, Premarin®, and the Conjugated Estrogen Saga

Kathryn

<HarpoThalmus@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1176181113.553443.285410@w1g2000hsg.googlegro ups.com...
> On Apr 9, 9:44 pm, "deja.blues" <deja.bl...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> <HarpoThal...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1176178724.799980.195360@n76g2000hsh.googlegr oups.com...
>>
>> If you're serious about utilizing Usenet, you need to abandon
>> Google groups, get a real newsreader, and learn some
>> Usenet etiquette.
>
> I like Google.

You *like* using Google groups?! To each one's own... IMO, its format is
a royal PITA, & I use it only when I'm forced to - when something happens
w/my regular news se