Re: Statins do NOT protect against Azlheimer's

From: listener (listener_at_nospam.net)
Date: 02/14/05 

Date: 14 Feb 2005 02:03:05 GMT

Jim Chinnis <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in
news:5duv015odm8kg0b0m5f8ht4jghn61512o9@4ax.com:

> "Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in part:
>
>>
>>"Jim Chinnis" <jchinnis@SPAMalum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>>news:airu01pr8o6fj1qe0m6sard24b6jc799hf@4ax.com...
>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in part:
> ...
>>> Looking at the science for a minute, I would expect any trials
>>> that are done to show a significant reduction in neuropathies in
>>> those with diabetes m who take a statin. Diabetic neuropathies are
>>> a result of microvascular disease that appears to be due to the
>>> elevation in blood glucose. When statins are given to those with
>>> diabetes m, the blood glucose levels fall.
>>>
>>> Yes, I know that Gaist has evidence that polyneuropathy rates
>>> spike with statins. But his studies are preliminary and
>>> retrospective. And certainly a reduction in neuropathies due to
>>> hyperglycemia in diabetes should far overshadow the "26-fold"
>>> increase due to the statin--if it proves to be real.
>>
>>Not sure why you consider 3 established large-population studies as
>>"preliminary". The results were similar in the studies published in
>>1999, 2001 and 2002. The third study was case-controlled.
>
> I'd call them preliminary. They are retrospective, not randomized.
> If you apply somewhat the same quality standards to the studies on
> statins and Alzheimer's, you'd have to say that it was proven that
> statins reduce the incidence of Alzheimer's.
>
>>Also, note in the quotes from the full-text article that all diabetics
>>were screened out of the population the study considered. By design,
>>there is no information on diabetic neuropathy or diabetic neuropathy
>>with statins in his study. However, the rate of diabetic neuropathy
>>must be known and established by now - else how could it be common
>>knowleged among people who know little about diabetes, yet know about
>>the peripheral neuropathy problem?
>
> They (DMers) weren't in his study, therefore no data there.
>
>>So, the 26-fold increase in polyneuropathy was for people who had no
>>tendency toward neuropathy, not for diabetics who have a very high
>>likelihood of developing neuropathy.
>>Per http://www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/neuropathies/index.htm
>>"An estimated 50 percent of those with diabetes have some form of
>>neuropathy, but not all with neuropathy have symptoms. The highest
>>rates of neuropathy are among people who have had the disease for at
>>least 25 years."
>
> Sure: DM causes disease of the small blood vessels and raised
> blood sugar and that affects the nerves.
>
>>So, if statins cause peripheral neuropathy at a rate of 26 times
>>normal after only 2 years of treatment, they cause neuropathy more
>>than 10 times faster than diabetes does. Worse than I had imagined.
>
> huh?
>
>>From
>>http://www.diabetes.niddk.nih.gov/dm/pubs/statistics/index.htm#13, ""
>>"Nervous system disease
>> a.. About 60 percent to 70 percent of people with diabetes have mild
>> to
>>severe forms of nervous system damage. The results of such damage
>>include impaired sensation or pain in the feet or hands, slowed
>>digestion of food in the stomach, carpal tunnel syndrome, and other
>>nerve problems.
>>
>>
>> b.. Severe forms of diabetic nerve disease are a major contributing
>> cause
>>of lower-extremity amputations."
>>So, if 60 to 70 percent of diabetics have peripheral neuropathy to
>>start, but are given a drug that makes a normal population 26 times
>>more likely to develop polyneuropathy, are you saying that the
>>diabetics' chances are no worse than the 26 times more likely because
>>of the statins, due to the statin being neurotoxic in a way that is
>>different from the way that the diabetes damages the nerves?
>
> No. I'm saying that diabetics will have a greatly lowered rate of
> neuropathies if they take statins. That's because statins will
> very likely reduce blood sugar levels and thus reduce the
> poisoning of peripheral nerves.
>
>>Even so, given the number of neuropathies in
>>the diabetic population, even if their risk is no greater than the 26
>>times increase, that would still mean a large number of diabetics
>>would get the polyneuropathy.
>
> Not if statins help them and reduce the chance of neuropathies in
> those with DM.
>
>>I'm not sure most people on this ng realize that this kind of
>>condition is not just a painful burning of the hands and feet, it can
>>result in amputation of the extremities. There tends to be a 'yawn,
>>big deal' attitude whenever PN from statins is brought up (not from
>>you personally, Jim - more the general tone of the group). However,
>>if it results in the loss of a limb, yes, it is a very big deal.
>
> I think PN is bad without amputation. But amputations should be
> greatly reduced in diabetics who take statins, because of reduced
> vascular problems.
>
> I really don't follow your logic on this.
> --
> Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

But you have to admire her obstinance.

And you were expecting *logic*!?

L.

Relevant Pages