Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: listener <listener@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 Jun 2005 12:10:46 GMT
"Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in
news:Du7re.238$on5.164@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>
> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:mbSdnV8qObyPFzHfRVn-2w@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:YkPqe.8274$jS1.8168@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:D4KdnVMQuZts1zbfRVn-ug@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Did you also chastize the AHA, NHLBI and ACC for warning about the
>>>> danger of muscle pain?
>>>
>>> No. I've have not seen all they wrote, but I'm guessing it was fair.
>>> I would warn people about the risks too. Only in a fair way. Why do
>>> you think that is relevant?
>>>
>>
>> Statin muscle damage, myopathy, myositis, can lead to rhabdomyolysis.
>> Obviously the AHA, ACC, and NIH's NHLBI thought it was relevant.
>>
>
> As do I and as I mentioned. Why are you pointing out things I agree
> with? Do you have anything remotely resembling a point here?
>
>>>
>>>> Or is it just newsgroup posters you attempt to intimidate, so
>>>> others
>>>> won't post about adverse effects? Is someone worried about adverse
>>>
>>> No. In fact I often agree with them.
>>>
>>>> effects metrics in the ng trolling that pharmcos do, per BJM?
>>>> http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/330/7504/1347-a?ehom
>>>>
>>>> Why are you actively trying to discourage a free and open
>>>> discussion, just because it addresses statin side effects? Is
>>>> there some bonus for keeping the numbers low in the hits returned
>>>> by the pharmco webcrawlers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Please provide proof of your claim.
>>>
>>> For the record statins can have adverse effects and I have said that
>>> many times before.
>>>
>
> You have avoided the above.
>
>>>> Jason was not addressing the rarity of rhabdomyolysis in the normal
>>>> non-statin using population. Nor was Jason addressing the rarity
>>>> of rhabdomyolysis in the general statin-using population. Jason
>>>> was addressing the danger of potential rhabdomyolysis in a patient
>>>> already exhibiting statin myopathy.
>>>
>>>
>>> Myopathy is common. Rhabdomyolysis is rare. So do you think it is
>>> common in people with myopathy? Provide a source for that. Also, has
>>> there ever been a case of Rhabdomyolysis in a patient with a
>>> non-elevated CK level?
>>>
>
> You have avoided the above.
>
>>>>Rhabdo, by the way IS a result of statin myopathy.
>>>>
>>>> It is quite reasonable to assume that there is enough of a chance
>>>> for a paitient who is already exhibiting statin myopathy to go into
>>>> rhabomyolysis, however rare it is in the general population.
>>>
>>> What do mean by "enough"? and what evidence do you have?
>>>
>
> You have avoided the above.
>
>>>> Did you also chastize the AHA, NHLBI and ACC for warning about the
>>>> danger of muscle pain?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You already asked that and I answerd it. I assume they were unbiased
>>> in their warnings. I have also warned about it.
>>>
>>>> After all, even Scott Grundy, the all-time statin cheerleader and
>>>> apologist, and acceptor of funding from all statin pharmcos,
>>>> himself wrote the following in the
>>>> ACC/AHA/NHLBI Clinical Advisory
>>>>
>>>> on the Use and Safety of Statins
>>>>
>>>> :
>>>>
>>>> "If the patient experiences muscle soreness, tenderness, or
>>>> pain, with or without CK elevations, rule out common
>>>>
>>>> causes such as exercise or strenuous work. Advise moderation
>>>>
>>>> in activity for persons who experience these symptoms
>>>>
>>>> during combination therapy.
>>>>
>>>> Discontinue statin therapy (or statin and niacin or fibrate
>>>>
>>>> if the patient is on combination therapy) if a CK greater
>>>>
>>>> than 10 times the ULN is encountered in a patient with
>>>>
>>>> muscle soreness, tenderness, or pain.
>>>>
>>>> If the patient experiences muscle soreness, tenderness, or
>>>>
>>>> pain with either no CK elevation or a moderate elevation (3
>>>>
>>>> to 10 times the ULN), follow the patient's symptoms and
>>>>
>>>> CK levels weekly until there is no longer medical concern or
>>>>
>>>> symptoms worsen to the situation described previously (at
>>>>
>>>> which point therapy should be discontinued). For patients
>>>>
>>>> who develop muscle discomfort and/or weakness and who
>>>>
>>>> also have progressive elevations of CK on serial measurements,
>>>>
>>>> either a reduction of statin dose or a temporary
>>>>
>>>> discontinuation may be prudent. A decision can then be
>>>>
>>>> made whether or when to reinstitute statin therapy."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> I agree with all of that.
>
> You have neglected to say why you even brought this up.
>
>>>
>>>> What possible reason could you have to attempt to intimidate the
>>>> reasonable discussion about a common concern?
>>>>
>>>
>>> I don't have any.
>>>
>>>> What makes you think that your biased and slanted and entirely
>>>> irrational opinion of Dr. Cohen's fine book is of interest here?
>>>
>>> I have said very little about the book. So it should be very easy to
>>> show where I have provided biased and slanted and etirely
>>> irrattional opinions.
>>>
>>> Please demonstrate this. Or be shown once again to be a liar.
>>
>> check this thread, that came from you to Jason regarding Dr. Cohen's
>> book.
>>
>
> I'm familar. Again you continue avoid the question. The reason is you
> have no answer. If you did, you would provide an answer. Instead you
> say go look at something when I've already said that something proves
> you to be a liar.
>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Who designated you as the official mind reader of top-selling
>>>> physicians who just might be answering a large public outcry and
>>>> need to know as 'bad mouthing'?
>>>>
>>> No one. Are you a volunteer?
>>
>> check this thread, that came from you to Jason regarding Dr. Cohen's
>> book.
>>
>
> That does not even make any sense at all. I see no reference to
> appointees at all.
>
>>>
>>>> Seems you may have mistaken a look in the mirror for the back cover
>>>> of Dr. Cohen's EXCELLENT book.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> You continue to just engauge in downgrading others but doing
>>> absolutely nothing to support your case.
>>
>> There is an 80-page FAQ on Statin Adverse Effects on the web for all
>> to see, that I created and maintain to support my case. What is your
>> response to the study findings in that FAQ?
>>
>> http://www.freewebs.com/stopped_our_statins/StatinFAQ_031305wTOCv4.pdf
>>
>>
>
> That they have nothing to do with what is being discussed here. I have
> agreed with most of the evidence you have posted here. What I've
> disagreed with is your attacks on me.
>
> But I had previously looked at the PDF file and it seems biased. I
> don't see much in the way of positive studies on statins. Second, it
> lists as side effects of Lipitor anything that happened to a large
> group of people during the trial. If you take a group of 2000 people
> and follow them for several months you will see a large variety of
> medical conditions arise. The source you were quoting from said
> "regardless of cauasality" and you left that out. That was biased.
>
> Bill
>
>>>
What a shock!
L.
.
- References:
- Additional Info. about statins
- From: Jason
- Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: Bill
- Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: Bill
- Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: Additional Info. about statins
- From: Bill
- Additional Info. about statins
- Prev by Date: Re: Some imput??
- Next by Date: Re: Some imput??
- Previous by thread: Re: Additional Info. about statins
- Next by thread: Re: Additional Info. about statins
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
