Re: Pravachol verses Lipitor ?
From: Zee (fresh~horses_at_despammed.com)
Date: 09/12/04
- Next message: Zee: "Re: clinton surgery question"
- Previous message: listener: "Panel Urges More Studies of Stroke Drug"
- In reply to: listener: "Re: Pravachol verses Lipitor ?"
- Next in thread: Zee: "Re: Pravachol verses Lipitor ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 12 Sep 2004 10:25:23 -0700
listener wrote:
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_spamout_@cox.net> wrote in
> news:%1Y0d.255090$sh.244919@fed1read06:
>
> >
> > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message
> > news:ci02dr$c80@odbk17.prod.google.com...
> >>
> >> Steve Marcus wrote:
> >> > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message
> >> > news:chv929$iqv@odak26.prod.google.com...
> >> > >
> >> > > Steve
> >> > >
> >> > >
> >> > > NIH, ICMJE, Cochrane Collaboration--all have said pharmas
(with
> >> > > FDA collusion) have withheld vital (no pun intended)
information
> >> > > from
> >> the
> >> > > public.
> >> > >
> >> > > I believe in the public right to know.
> >> > >
> >> > > Zee
> >> >
> >> > Indeed. Yet for every article that you post that casts medical
> >> > professionals and/or the pharmaceutical industry in a bad light,
> >> there are
> >> > at least a hundred that cast them in a good light. If you wish
to
> >> > facilitate the public's right to know, one would expect you to
post
> >> > a
> >> more
> >> > balanced spectrum of information.
> >> >
> >> > Again, for every person who cannot tolerate statins, there are
> >> literally
> >> > tens of thousands who can, do and benefit from statins.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> LOL. I am under no obligation to represent pharma.
> >
> > You claimed to be using this forum to satisfy the public's right to
> > know. That knowledge includes the good, as well as the bad, about
the
> > pharmaceutical industry.
> >
> >> They are well looked
> >> after by those denizens of Goebbel's profession whom they employ.
> >
> > Your bias is showing. The public's right to know should be from
> > balanced sources, not from biased sources. Otherwise, you have
become
> > what you are claiming to contradict.
> >
> >> I am
> >> in most instances responding to query from those who have already
> >> crossed over that thin line.
> >
> > You would have absolutely no way of knowing that without examining
> > them, having complete medical histories from them, and being a
> > qualified health care professional.
> >
> >> They are experiencing symptoms that might
> >> be attributed to statins.
> >
> > Or might not.
> >
> >> No-one apparently has told them.
> >
> > Before or after the fact of their symptoms?
> >
> >> They have
> >> not done their homework, granted. (No point rubbing their faces in
it
> >> here Steve).
> >
> > That's the *whole* point, Zee. A while back I posted something
about
> > the inherent stupidity of someone coming to this newsgroup and
asking
> > for medical advice. It is equally stupid to not have asked
questions
> > when the medication was being prescribed, and/or to not have read
the
> > material that, by law, comes with the medication.
> >
> > Your brief is to scare away the 99.03% of people who will be able
to
> > take a statin drug without side effects because of the remaining
.07%,
> > some fraction of them will have not been properly informed of the
side
> > effects, the contraindications, the drug interactions, and the need
> > for testing to monitor for those side effects. That failure to
inform
> > on the part of the doctor would be malpractice, the failure to
inform
> > oneself (or at least ask the questions) is their own failure. The
> > failure to be properly diagnosed when suffering what could be a
statin
> > induced side effect (as, for example, detailed above by Cappy), is
> > again medical malpractice.
> >
> >> And if statins work the way it is said they do, that may
> >> be damage that is not recoverable. (Is MS or AlS damage
> >> 'recoverable?') That is why it is so important not to take them if
> >> you don't need to; to take as little a dose as possible if you do
> >> (varying per individual need of course) and to use them for as
short
> >> a time as possible. Yes take all this information, and whatever
else
> >> you find, and go talk to your doctor. And if he or she won't find
> >> another. Know that the liver enzyme tests aren't going to do it,
know
> >> that ignoring the symptoms and tolerating for the sake of
> >> risk/benefit may not be very wise in light of rhabdomyolysis. Bang
> >> it's there. Too late.
> >
> > From your typical posts, no one would take away the information
that
> > you people should take them if they need to. Apparently, there is
> > some balance in your point of view that has come out now that
you've
> > responded to this series of posts.
> >
> >>
> >> If people can tolerate them and benefit and *truly* need them then
> >> well and good. Why is it a problem that I provide another side of
the
> >> story with which to weigh a decision? You have it. Obviously the
> >> person posting here saying "could?" does not.
> >
> > It is a problem because you typically present only one side, the
side
> > that is relevent for less than .1% of those who take statins. As
> > noted above, this is the first post from you that I can recall you
> > stating that people who need statins should take them.
> >
> >>
> >> I have no problem with anyone using statins. I have a problem with
> >> suppression of information. Deliberate suppression.
> >
> > But the suppression of information is in your imagination. Neither
> > doctors nor the pharmaceutical industries suppress the drug
> > interactions, the contraindications, the potential side effects and
> > the need for constant blood tests to monitor various functions when
> > taking statins. Unless you consider malpractice on the part of the
> > prescribing doctor to be "suppression" of information.
> >
> >> And as you must
> >> acknowledge Steve I am not alone in thinking that is wrong, must
and
> >> will change. Then, I think, there will be fewer problem drugs like
> >> statins. Who is to say what difficuties and harm might have been
> >> avoided if the runaway train that is the pharmaceutical business
had
> >> been throttled back or controlled some time go, as is being done
now.
> >>
> >> I didn't write Rennie's editorial. I just posted it. Those damning
> >> words are his.
> >
> > Your failure to appreciate that he has at least as big an axe to
grind
> > as the one that you imagine is wielded by the pharmaceutical is
part
> > of the problem.
> >
> >>
> >> Zee
> >>
> > Steve
>
> Haven't we been here before? I'm having deja vu all over again.....
>
> Frankly, I've given up trying to make similar points. Between the
> religious nutcakes, the pharmaphobes, and the occasional cardiology-
> related question it's a real chore gleaning anything of value here
> anymore.
>
> L.
Other than the Chung bashing posts most others here are cardiology
related. Try making a contribution instead of always looking to
"glean".
Zee
- Next message: Zee: "Re: clinton surgery question"
- Previous message: listener: "Panel Urges More Studies of Stroke Drug"
- In reply to: listener: "Re: Pravachol verses Lipitor ?"
- Next in thread: Zee: "Re: Pravachol verses Lipitor ?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
