What’s wrong with arthritis medicine?

By now, you’ve probably heard that arthritis medicine has a lot of problems and that it’s not good for you.

But the research shows that the drug works, and the data suggests that it may help you.

The study, which looked at 1,800 people who had arthritis and their family members, was published online in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) and analyzed data from two trials.

One was the Arthritis Foundation’s Phase III trial, in which patients received two years of the drug, and another was the New York City Arthritis Initiative, which was funded by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the National Institutes of Health.

The New York Arthritis Study included patients with moderate to severe osteoarthritis, with no other known risk factors.

The Arthritis foundation said that in its Phase III study, the drug led to a dramatic reduction in the number of bone fractures.

In the New City trial, which included more than 5,000 people with moderate-to-severe osteoarsis, the bone density reduction was less than half of what was found in the Arthroscopy II trial, the foundation said.

That was the only trial that showed that the drugs led to significant reductions in bone fracture rates, and it was the first to find a positive effect.

This isn’t the first time that scientists have come to this conclusion.

A similar trial led by researchers at the University of Arizona in 2009 showed that, in a controlled trial, two of the most commonly used drugs — methotrexate and levofloxacin — had no effect on bone density or fracture rates.

The drug caused a 30 percent reduction in bone density in people with osteoarthropathy, but it didn’t affect fractures.

Another study published last year showed that a new drug, taurine, showed significant bone density reductions, but only for people with arthritis.

The researchers used data from a large, multi-center trial of taurin to estimate that taurines benefit people with both osteoarrhythmias and osteoacromegaly, two conditions that are closely related.

It showed that patients with both types of diseases had a significantly higher rate of bone fracture, but the rate was much lower in the taurinated group.

The research suggests that there are some important limitations to using the drug.

One of the biggest is that the patients who were being studied didn’t get to choose the treatment, which means that the data may not reflect what patients actually experience.

The other problem is that many of the patients in the trials weren’t really able to get enough calcium to build up in their bones.

In fact, many of them had a low calcium intake.

So it’s possible that the results may be biased.

The results from these trials are also limited because of the limited time that they were conducted, and because they were done in countries where the drug is widely available.

But the researchers said that they believe that the evidence is compelling enough that the FDA should approve the drug and give it a shot.

“In the next few years, more than 500,000 Americans will benefit from the new drug for the first and only time,” said David Schulman, MD, a clinical director of the Arroyoast Health Institute at the Mayo Clinic.

“Our goal is to get the FDA to approve the treatment as soon as possible, and we believe that it is possible to do so without any serious side effects.”

The FDA should act quickly to approve this new drug and we will work closely with them to ensure that the benefits are shared with the patients.

“The FDA declined to comment for this story.