<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments for CardioBrief</title>
	<atom:link href="http://cardiobrief.org/comments/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://cardiobrief.org</link>
	<description>One-stop source for cardiology news and links</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:06:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on European Medicines Agency Starts Review of Combined Use Of Drugs That Block The Renin-Angiotensin System by Jean E. Sealey D.Sc and John H. Laragh MD</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/20/european-medicines-agency-starts-review-of-combined-use-of-drugs-that-block-the-renin-angiotensin-system/#comment-14878</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jean E. Sealey D.Sc and John H. Laragh MD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 22 May 2013 12:06:09 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14217#comment-14878</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Multiple antihypertensive drugs should be used only when absolutely necessary. But, high renin hypertensives (who are at greatest risk of a cardiovascular event) should not be deprived of the option of dual renin-angiotensin system blockade. The conclusion by Messerli et al that dual blockade should be discouraged was based on a meta analysis of clinical trials, most of which paradoxically revealed net benefit from the first blocker but net risk from the second. But, even positive clinical trials are the result of net effect of benefit in some and increased risk in others. Moreover package inserts warn that sodium depleted patients are at increased risk from renin-angiotensin system blockers of hypotension, hyperkalemia and deteriorating renin function. The problem is that some sodium depleted patients were likely present in the clinical trials, since they are difficult to detect. Therefore, the results can be explained as follows: the first blocker benefits most patients but puts sodium depleted patients at increased risk. The second blocker adds no more benefit to most, but increases the risk of the sodium depleted patients.  In sum, sodium depleted patients are at risk from both single and dual renin-angiotensin system blockade. Thus, dual blockade is not the problem, it is giving renin-angiotensin system blockers to sodium depleted patients. Every effort should be made to avoid or reverse sodium depletion before giving even one renin-angiotensin system blocking drug. This can be done by subtracting low salt diets and natriuretic drugs while monitoring plasma renin and blood pressure levels (Amer J Hypertens 2013;26:727. Renin-angiotensin system blockers may create more risk than reward for sodium depleted cardiovascular patients with high PRA levels.).]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Multiple antihypertensive drugs should be used only when absolutely necessary. But, high renin hypertensives (who are at greatest risk of a cardiovascular event) should not be deprived of the option of dual renin-angiotensin system blockade. The conclusion by Messerli et al that dual blockade should be discouraged was based on a meta analysis of clinical trials, most of which paradoxically revealed net benefit from the first blocker but net risk from the second. But, even positive clinical trials are the result of net effect of benefit in some and increased risk in others. Moreover package inserts warn that sodium depleted patients are at increased risk from renin-angiotensin system blockers of hypotension, hyperkalemia and deteriorating renin function. The problem is that some sodium depleted patients were likely present in the clinical trials, since they are difficult to detect. Therefore, the results can be explained as follows: the first blocker benefits most patients but puts sodium depleted patients at increased risk. The second blocker adds no more benefit to most, but increases the risk of the sodium depleted patients.  In sum, sodium depleted patients are at risk from both single and dual renin-angiotensin system blockade. Thus, dual blockade is not the problem, it is giving renin-angiotensin system blockers to sodium depleted patients. Every effort should be made to avoid or reverse sodium depletion before giving even one renin-angiotensin system blocking drug. This can be done by subtracting low salt diets and natriuretic drugs while monitoring plasma renin and blood pressure levels (Amer J Hypertens 2013;26:727. Renin-angiotensin system blockers may create more risk than reward for sodium depleted cardiovascular patients with high PRA levels.).</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Heart Rhythm Society Advising DOJ in Investigation of ICD Implants by Cardiology EP Doc</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2011/01/21/heart-rhythm-society-advising-doj-in-investigation-of-icd-implants/#comment-14829</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Cardiology EP Doc]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 17 May 2013 14:11:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=7436#comment-14829</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[There are some known misnomers with the design. I would suggest consulting with a specialist and attaining thorough understand of what ICD is being put into implementation as well as the ranges of diversities when it comes to choosing your various options.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>There are some known misnomers with the design. I would suggest consulting with a specialist and attaining thorough understand of what ICD is being put into implementation as well as the ranges of diversities when it comes to choosing your various options.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Resveratrol and Fraud by eduardo</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2012/01/16/resveratrol-and-fraud/#comment-14816</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[eduardo]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 16 May 2013 17:20:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=10559#comment-14816</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[How much does the pharma industry pay you fo rthis article? Just to blame what they cannot hold ?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>How much does the pharma industry pay you fo rthis article? Just to blame what they cannot hold ?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Bruise Control: Continued Warfarin Beats Heparin Bridging During Device Implantation by HEPARIN BASED T1 TREATMENT &#8211; UPDATE &#124; BvA-TeC</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/09/bruise-control-continued-warfarin-beats-heparin-bridging-during-device-implantation/#comment-14792</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[HEPARIN BASED T1 TREATMENT &#8211; UPDATE &#124; BvA-TeC]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 14 May 2013 21:25:40 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14162#comment-14792</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] Bruise Control: Continued Warfarin Beats Heparin Bridging During Device Implantation (cardiobrief.org) [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] Bruise Control: Continued Warfarin Beats Heparin Bridging During Device Implantation (cardiobrief.org) [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Larry Husten</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14784</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Husten]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 13:42:29 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14784</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[You won&#039;t get an argument from me about this. I agree entirely. To be clear: I&#039;m not against advertising in medical journals. But let&#039;s acknowledge their role.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>You won&#8217;t get an argument from me about this. I agree entirely. To be clear: I&#8217;m not against advertising in medical journals. But let&#8217;s acknowledge their role.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Alan Averson</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14783</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Alan Averson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 13:33:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14783</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[40% of the revenue of your employer, the NEJM, comes from advertisements and reprint sales. Look in the mirror for self deception Mr. Husten.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>40% of the revenue of your employer, the NEJM, comes from advertisements and reprint sales. Look in the mirror for self deception Mr. Husten.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Joseph Chemplavil, MD</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14779</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Joseph Chemplavil, MD]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 13 May 2013 00:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14779</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Dr. Siqin Ye’s story is an example of Muhammad Ali effect in scientists. From my research, it appears that individuals think of the self as considerably more moral (i.e. more fair and less unfair) and only slightly more intelligent than others, a pattern termed the Muhammad Ali effect. Consistent with the Muhammad Ali effect described by Allison and associates, it was found that subjects judged their own behavior as more desirable than the other&#039;s behavior. 

The decrease in admission rates observed over the years in self-reports but not in non-self-reports could be explained by a combination of the Mohammed Ali effect and social expectations. It seems that scientists or cardiologists are no less likely to commit misconduct or to report what they see their colleagues doing, but have become less likely to admit it for themselves.

Reference: Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., &amp; Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7, 275–295.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Dr. Siqin Ye’s story is an example of Muhammad Ali effect in scientists. From my research, it appears that individuals think of the self as considerably more moral (i.e. more fair and less unfair) and only slightly more intelligent than others, a pattern termed the Muhammad Ali effect. Consistent with the Muhammad Ali effect described by Allison and associates, it was found that subjects judged their own behavior as more desirable than the other&#8217;s behavior. </p>
<p>The decrease in admission rates observed over the years in self-reports but not in non-self-reports could be explained by a combination of the Mohammed Ali effect and social expectations. It seems that scientists or cardiologists are no less likely to commit misconduct or to report what they see their colleagues doing, but have become less likely to admit it for themselves.</p>
<p>Reference: Allison, S. T., Messick, D. M., &amp; Goethals, G. R. (1989). On being better but not smarter than others: The Muhammad Ali effect. Social Cognition, 7, 275–295.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Lawson English</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14778</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lawson English]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 21:50:43 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14778</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Eh, TM&#039;s only real effects should be in terms of 

1) reversing/healing/normalizing the damage to the body and nervous system due to stressful experience;
2) strengthening the nervous system to become less susceptible to new stress by establishing the relaxed EEG pattern (and/or whatever is the cause of that pattern) found during TM as a trait found outside of meditation.

If there is a large stress-related aspect of a specific person&#039;s disease or disfunction, such as hypertension, TM should have a correspondingly large effect. Not all hypertension patients have a large stress-related aspect to their disease, so TM will have correspondingly less of an effect.  After averaging everyone together, TM has been found to have a &quot;modest&quot; effect on hypertension, which is what you would expect, given the above.

I expect that larger studies on TM which can differentiate in terms how stress-related the condition is will find this to be true.

That recent study which you are still critical of found a rather large reduction in cardiovascular disease. It is entirely possible that there is a very large stress-related component in that population, for various reasons.

A recent study out of Germany reports that work-related stress can double the incidence of cardiovascular disease, so it isn&#039;t a stretch to think that the TM study might be valid for that specific group of people while for others, the effect might be smaller OR larger.


http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/en/news/press-releases-2013/press-release/article/21273/index.html]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Eh, TM&#8217;s only real effects should be in terms of </p>
<p>1) reversing/healing/normalizing the damage to the body and nervous system due to stressful experience;<br />
2) strengthening the nervous system to become less susceptible to new stress by establishing the relaxed EEG pattern (and/or whatever is the cause of that pattern) found during TM as a trait found outside of meditation.</p>
<p>If there is a large stress-related aspect of a specific person&#8217;s disease or disfunction, such as hypertension, TM should have a correspondingly large effect. Not all hypertension patients have a large stress-related aspect to their disease, so TM will have correspondingly less of an effect.  After averaging everyone together, TM has been found to have a &#8220;modest&#8221; effect on hypertension, which is what you would expect, given the above.</p>
<p>I expect that larger studies on TM which can differentiate in terms how stress-related the condition is will find this to be true.</p>
<p>That recent study which you are still critical of found a rather large reduction in cardiovascular disease. It is entirely possible that there is a very large stress-related component in that population, for various reasons.</p>
<p>A recent study out of Germany reports that work-related stress can double the incidence of cardiovascular disease, so it isn&#8217;t a stretch to think that the TM study might be valid for that specific group of people while for others, the effect might be smaller OR larger.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/en/news/press-releases-2013/press-release/article/21273/index.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.helmholtz-muenchen.de/en/news/press-releases-2013/press-release/article/21273/index.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Jean-Pierre Usdin Paris France</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14777</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jean-Pierre Usdin Paris France]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 20:29:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14777</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The most flashing subliminal message of these last months is in my opinion the advertising of this new anti diabetic: Dapagliflozin appearing on the fourth of cover page of NEJM. 
I am not a diabetologist but watching this bottle half full of white powder supposed to be sugar tell me that this new medicine (which does only to increase the content of sugar in the urine with the possibility of harm to the kidney bladder etc.) is the best one on the market!]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>The most flashing subliminal message of these last months is in my opinion the advertising of this new anti diabetic: Dapagliflozin appearing on the fourth of cover page of NEJM.<br />
I am not a diabetologist but watching this bottle half full of white powder supposed to be sugar tell me that this new medicine (which does only to increase the content of sugar in the urine with the possibility of harm to the kidney bladder etc.) is the best one on the market!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Colin Rose</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14776</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Colin Rose]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 19:51:30 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14776</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[All doctors who advise patients are supposed to be professionals. The public puts their trust in professionals believing them to be self-regulated to be above the venality of the ordinary citizen. Professionals, by definition, must avoid any financial or other influence that would even potentially affect the best interest of their clients. Unfortunately, unless the lack of professionalism is grossly obvious and there are many complaints from the public, unprofessional behaviour goes unpunished. Licensing bodies never sanction industrial financial influence on doctors. Self-regulation is a sham. If doctors can&#039;t act professionally what hope is there for the rest of society?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>All doctors who advise patients are supposed to be professionals. The public puts their trust in professionals believing them to be self-regulated to be above the venality of the ordinary citizen. Professionals, by definition, must avoid any financial or other influence that would even potentially affect the best interest of their clients. Unfortunately, unless the lack of professionalism is grossly obvious and there are many complaints from the public, unprofessional behaviour goes unpunished. Licensing bodies never sanction industrial financial influence on doctors. Self-regulation is a sham. If doctors can&#8217;t act professionally what hope is there for the rest of society?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Larry Husten</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14775</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Husten]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 19:26:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14775</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I have no reason to think that cardiologists are any more-- or less-- susceptible to self-deception than other specialists, or, indeed, other humans. It seems to me that we can only begin to confront this problem once we begin to acknowledge the possibility-- indeed, the inevitability-- of self-deception in ourselves.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have no reason to think that cardiologists are any more&#8211; or less&#8211; susceptible to self-deception than other specialists, or, indeed, other humans. It seems to me that we can only begin to confront this problem once we begin to acknowledge the possibility&#8211; indeed, the inevitability&#8211; of self-deception in ourselves.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Robert Weitz</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14774</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Robert Weitz]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 19:23:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14774</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I am an patient and am completely frustrated by how brainwashed the cardiology community is. I had a mixoma removed and was thrown into survival mode. That means that I do a lot of reading and trying to understand the rational basis for studies and arguments that relate to my survival. I have other doctors who have heart issues call cardiology &quot;medicine by numbers&quot;. Two things - I ask every Dr. I meet how much training they have in statistics (they rarely have any training) and I am appalled by how they accept poorly done meta studies, with few questions. 

When I confronted an electro-cardiologist about lead failures in ICDs all he could do is stare at the ground and admit the stats I was presenting matched his own experience, but he wasn&#039;t prepared to speak further about it. 

If one is a healthy patient with good habits the results are not recorded and positive outcomes that are not drug or intervention based are ignored.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I am an patient and am completely frustrated by how brainwashed the cardiology community is. I had a mixoma removed and was thrown into survival mode. That means that I do a lot of reading and trying to understand the rational basis for studies and arguments that relate to my survival. I have other doctors who have heart issues call cardiology &#8220;medicine by numbers&#8221;. Two things &#8211; I ask every Dr. I meet how much training they have in statistics (they rarely have any training) and I am appalled by how they accept poorly done meta studies, with few questions. </p>
<p>When I confronted an electro-cardiologist about lead failures in ICDs all he could do is stare at the ground and admit the stats I was presenting matched his own experience, but he wasn&#8217;t prepared to speak further about it. </p>
<p>If one is a healthy patient with good habits the results are not recorded and positive outcomes that are not drug or intervention based are ignored.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Larry Husten</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14773</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Larry Husten]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 19:05:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14773</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I thought about posting on this and I may still do so. I remain critical of that TM paper but I&#039;m not sure that the AHA statement is completely incorrect. The recommendation is very weak. A IIB endorsement hardly qualifies as a strong endorsement.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I thought about posting on this and I may still do so. I remain critical of that TM paper but I&#8217;m not sure that the AHA statement is completely incorrect. The recommendation is very weak. A IIB endorsement hardly qualifies as a strong endorsement.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Our Limitless Capacity For Self-Deception by Lawson English</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/12/our-limitless-capacity-for-self-deception/#comment-14772</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Lawson English]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 May 2013 18:56:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14169#comment-14772</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Waiting for your reaction to the recent American Heart Association scientific statement on alternate treatments for hypertension that says that TM is currently the only relaxation/meditation technique that has sufficiently good research available that the AHA can recommend it as an adjunctive treatment for hypertension.

Surely you must have some comment seeing how they cite the recently published study on TM and cardiovascular disease that you have written so much about...]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Waiting for your reaction to the recent American Heart Association scientific statement on alternate treatments for hypertension that says that TM is currently the only relaxation/meditation technique that has sufficiently good research available that the AHA can recommend it as an adjunctive treatment for hypertension.</p>
<p>Surely you must have some comment seeing how they cite the recently published study on TM and cardiovascular disease that you have written so much about&#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Another Disappointing Study For Fish Oil Supplements by Weekend Reading &#124; Science-Based Pharmacy</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/08/another-disappointing-study-for-fish-oil-supplements/#comment-14761</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Weekend Reading &#124; Science-Based Pharmacy]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 19:54:05 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14159#comment-14761</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] fish, not supplements. Another study examines fish oil and finds it useless for any of the studied cardiovascular endpoints. On the positive side of dietary interventions, a study that examines monounsaturated-rich [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] fish, not supplements. Another study examines fish oil and finds it useless for any of the studied cardiovascular endpoints. On the positive side of dietary interventions, a study that examines monounsaturated-rich [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Edwards CEO Sold Stock 2 Weeks Before It Tanked by Adam Saunders</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/04/26/edwards-ceo-sold-stock-2-weeks-before-it-tanked/#comment-14758</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Adam Saunders]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 11 May 2013 04:30:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14112#comment-14758</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Embarrassing. You really shouldn&#039;t call yourself a reporter.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Embarrassing. You really shouldn&#8217;t call yourself a reporter.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on FDA: Watchman device will need to wait a bit longer by Encouraging 4 Year Results For Watchman Device In AF Patients &#171; CardioBrief</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2010/03/18/fda-watchman-device-will-need-to-wait-a-bit-longer/#comment-14756</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Encouraging 4 Year Results For Watchman Device In AF Patients &#171; CardioBrief]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 May 2013 17:11:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=4810#comment-14756</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[&#8230;] were more safety problems, as might be expected, in the early days after implantation. The FDA required the company to perform a confirmatory trial. That trial, PREVAIL, has been the subject [&#8230;]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] were more safety problems, as might be expected, in the early days after implantation. The FDA required the company to perform a confirmatory trial. That trial, PREVAIL, has been the subject [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Another Disappointing Study For Fish Oil Supplements by grimash</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/08/another-disappointing-study-for-fish-oil-supplements/#comment-14749</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[grimash]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 09 May 2013 14:00:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14159#comment-14749</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Exactly Gary. Another disappointing day for science journalism.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Exactly Gary. Another disappointing day for science journalism.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Another Disappointing Study For Fish Oil Supplements by Gary</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/05/08/another-disappointing-study-for-fish-oil-supplements/#comment-14747</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Gary]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 08 May 2013 23:11:56 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14159#comment-14747</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[1 gm of fish oil a day  ---why bother --IMHO It takes at least 3 gms a day to have any significant effect on ones lipid profile]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>1 gm of fish oil a day  &#8212;why bother &#8211;IMHO It takes at least 3 gms a day to have any significant effect on ones lipid profile</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Prominent Japanese Cardiologist Accused of Scientific Misconduct by Japanese Research Scandal Expands To A Second Trial And A Novartis Employee &#124; Technology</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2012/03/13/prominent-japanese-cardiologist-accused-of-scientific-misconduct/#comment-14665</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Japanese Research Scandal Expands To A Second Trial And A Novartis Employee &#124; Technology]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 02 May 2013 21:24:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=10956#comment-14665</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] Prominent Japanese Cardiologist Accused of Scientific Misconduct [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] Prominent Japanese Cardiologist Accused of Scientific Misconduct [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Guest Post&#8211; Universal Screening for Dyslipidemia In Children: A Debate With Equipoise, But Tarnished By Industry Influence by WSJ Article Fails To Raise Key Questions About Cardiovascular Risk In Children &#171; CardioBrief</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2012/08/03/guest-post-universal-screening-for-dyslipidemia-in-children-a-debate-with-equipoise-but-tarnished-by-industry-influence/#comment-14637</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[WSJ Article Fails To Raise Key Questions About Cardiovascular Risk In Children &#171; CardioBrief]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 19:43:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=12115#comment-14637</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[[...] universal cholesterol screening for children between 9 and 11, but there is no mention that some experts disagree with this recommendation.  Further, these screening tests focus on the measurement of LDL cholesterol. Winslow [...]]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] universal cholesterol screening for children between 9 and 11, but there is no mention that some experts disagree with this recommendation.  Further, these screening tests focus on the measurement of LDL cholesterol. Winslow [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Anticoagulation Update: New Agent For Urgent Anticoagulation Reversal, Pradaxa Label Revised by airbornezapato</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/04/30/anticoagulation-update-new-agent-for-urgent-anticoagulation-reversal-pradaxa-label-revised/#comment-14635</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[airbornezapato]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:22:27 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14120#comment-14635</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[What a comedy of errors.  FAD chasing its behind so that we can use more Pradaxa.  Which by the way you can now never safely stop. Really!! The tail wagging the whole dog pound.

W.Larch MD, FACC]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What a comedy of errors.  FAD chasing its behind so that we can use more Pradaxa.  Which by the way you can now never safely stop. Really!! The tail wagging the whole dog pound.</p>
<p>W.Larch MD, FACC</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Heart Failure Death Statistics: Don’t believe what you read on the internet by Mike Spurlock</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2010/12/01/heart-failure-death-statistics-don%e2%80%99t-believe-what-you-read-on-the-internet/#comment-14625</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Mike Spurlock]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 30 Apr 2013 04:54:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=7145#comment-14625</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thank you for this article. I cant tell you the fear I felt when my partner was diagnosed with CHF and I went to the internet to see the prognosis. I thought he was going to die within months. It has been 10 years and he is doing well. Even a drone &#039;case worker&#039; told him he at best 5 years to live. I dont think the policy and procedure wonks at many of these organizations really care. They are only concerned about dollars in and out.]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Thank you for this article. I cant tell you the fear I felt when my partner was diagnosed with CHF and I went to the internet to see the prognosis. I thought he was going to die within months. It has been 10 years and he is doing well. Even a drone &#8216;case worker&#8217; told him he at best 5 years to live. I dont think the policy and procedure wonks at many of these organizations really care. They are only concerned about dollars in and out.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Landslide of Lancet papers suggest importance of blood pressure variability by Jasmine Richardson</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2010/03/11/landslide-of-lancet-papers-suggest-importance-of-blood-pressure-variability/#comment-14600</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Jasmine Richardson]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 28 Apr 2013 23:11:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=4682#comment-14600</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[and. . . What is the average blood pressure whentaken on the leg?
Why?]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>and. . . What is the average blood pressure whentaken on the leg?<br />
Why?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>Comment on Edwards CEO Sold Stock 2 Weeks Before It Tanked by Leary, Owen \(Prespoint Capital, LLC\)</title>
		<link>http://cardiobrief.org/2013/04/26/edwards-ceo-sold-stock-2-weeks-before-it-tanked/#comment-14544</link>
		<dc:creator><![CDATA[Leary, Owen \(Prespoint Capital, LLC\)]]></dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 26 Apr 2013 13:12:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://cardiobrief.org/?p=14112#comment-14544</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Hi Larry. He actually has a plan that sells 35,000 shares every month. It&#039;s a lot, but he as been doing this for a few years.  

  

________________________________]]></description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Hi Larry. He actually has a plan that sells 35,000 shares every month. It&#8217;s a lot, but he as been doing this for a few years.  </p>
<p>________________________________</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>