<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" ?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://blogs.mercola.com:443/utility/FeedStylesheets/rss.xsl" media="screen"?><rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/" xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"><channel><xhtml:meta xmlns:xhtml="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml" name="robots" content="noindex" /><title>Pissing Match Over Kidney Treatment--Did Marketing Concerns Trump Good Medicine?</title><link>https://blogs.mercola.com:443/sites/vitalvotes/archive/2004/02/07/Pissing-Match-Over-Kidney-Treatment-Did-Marketing-Concerns-Trump-Good-Medicine.aspx</link><description>The Washington Post documents how three senior scientists at a medical journal (world's largest and oldest renal care journal) approved an editorial that took a strong unfavorable position regarding prescribing an expensive drug for kidney dialysis patients</description><dc:language>en</dc:language><generator>CommunityServer 2008.5 SP1 (Debug Build: 31106.3070)</generator></channel></rss>