The last thing the Ninth Amendment wants to do is make any readers anxious or lose sleep so please relax and allow us first to convey a few points. The above headline refers to a summary article in the New York Times describing a study by Canadian and French medical researchers recently published in the well-regarded British Medical Journal (BMJ). Because of the high degree of reader interest in this area the Times article so far has generated well over three hundred comments and counting in the digital edition.
Although it is important for our interested readers to be aware of the content of this article (which itself links directly to the full study for those interested) because it could prove lucrative fodder for media hype the truth of the matter is that a great many of the commenters including physicians weighing in on the Times article make seemingly valid points calling into question several aspects of the study done on the basis of medical records rather than dedicated study participants which make any suggestion of a conclusion based on everything from the lack of value of information presented which did not contain dosage information to a lack of evidence of other factors which may have affected the "control group".
One commenting M.D.,Ph.D. whose comment was the second published in the digital Times following the article went so far as to observe that "there is a fairly large scientific literature showing benzodiazepines reduce the deposition of amyloid as well protect from the toxicity of the abnormal protein. Thus there is substantial basis to believe that this class of medications might actually be protective from Alzheimer's. . . ." This statement is consistent with the observation by the physician chief editor in the Harvard Medical Newsletter a few years past that despite the recent large-scale demonization (largely among physicians who never had experienced ongoing severe anxiety or used them) of benzodiazepines especially in any longer-term use that his lifetime of medical practice experience showed that long-term and even lifetime use of this class of medications was indicated in some patients for whom they had meant a huge improvement in quality of life for persons who might otherwise forever be virtually immobilized or unable to interact with others and society overall without constant overwhelming anxiety.
This extended to the seemingly incomprehensible math used to reach any conclusion other than one that was unproven and premature at best. None of the physicians commenting found the study to be persuasive of the assertion of any causal "link" as implied in the Times headline reflected above. At best they concluded the demonstrated relationship might be stretched to the limit as an "association". Many also took the Times to task for publishing an article of such personal medical interest to so many readers on this topic which was written by one with no recognized nor noted medical credentials at all must less a physician specializing in this field.
Many of these points are touched on in the Ninth Amendment's comment to the Times article published earlier today in the Times digital edition. It is followed immediately by a link to the article itself which includes the 300+ comments published as of this posting as well as incorporating a direct link to the full study as published in the BMJ.
THE NINTH AMENDMENT CANNOT AND DOES NOT PROVIDE NOR PURPORT TO PROVIDE ANY MEDICAL ADVICE TO ANYONE AT ALL. READERS MUST SEEK ALL MEDICAL ADVICE FROM A PROPERLY LICENSED MEDICAL PROFESSIONAL WHICH THE NINTH AMENDMENT IS NOT.
Ninth Amendment New York Times Digital Published Comment:
