[Talk] Re: Talk digest, Vol 1 #1772 - 2 msgs

[Nick Simicich]

On Fri, 2006-08-25 at 12:14, Bill Snow wrote:
> I don't think this is appropriate for a Linux mailing list.

Bill, neither do I.  Stuff that is not Linux related is pushed off to
talk, and it is pretty much liberty hall here, "where you can spit on
the mat and call the cat a bastard". I've been told that we are one of
the few "dual list" environments that actually works - and I'm actually
fairly proud of it and of many of us who participate in this. Maybe one
of the things that has kept this alive is that when we have a desire to
speak socially we have a place for it, I dunno.  Not sure quite how much
this got in the regular press, but to me, going non-prescription with a
morning after pill, even if it is only for adults, is a sign that the
end of the world might be just a little farther off than I had imagined.

I use a CPAP because I have sleep apnea - have had apnea for years,
since I was underweight.  There are two major schemes to treat apnea,
jaw appliances that jut the lower jaw forward and pull the tongue out of
the airway, and pressure machines that blow gently into your nose with
just enough pressure to splint the airway open.

I read through a transcript of a six hour meeting where the FDA
considered making a variation on the jaw jutters non-prescription - in
England, you can get one of these devices that is a "boil and bite" and
it costs about $50 as opposed to the several thousand that it would cost
to get a dentist whose practice was limited to TMJ, Apnea and jaw
repositioning devices (I would not get one from a regular dentist) to
fit you up with a real one.

After listening to the presentations by those dentists, I'm convinced
that thejaw devices are only to be used by those who can't use a CPAP -
for one thing, after a fairly short amount of time, they can cause
permanent deformation, and the ones that you get OTC are worse because
they do not hold the teeth completely, and for other reasons.

Despite the risks, there were those on the panel who were looking to
help people who could not afford the first rate treatment with the
highly paid specialist. What it came down to was that the risk of
permanent injury was just too high when you did not have regular
checkups.

I wonder if this discussion would be just as interesting reading.  Also,
from the FDA's comments, it looks like the company asked for the dual
packaging with prescription required under 18.  If that is the case, I
wonder if they did that because they were told that it was a political
no-go.  It could be that there are real health risks to teenagers that
don't exist with adults - which would therefore make the dual status
legal - if a doctor is actually needed to decide if this is appropriate
therapy for a young teen, while the physical changes that are usually
complete by the time someone is 18 eliminate that risk - that would make
it right to package it this way.

-- 
Blog: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/blogger.html
Atom: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/atom.xml
RSS: http://majordomo.squawk.com/njs/blog/atom.rdf