Re: CK blood test

You have a different interpretation of the study. You have said you cannot
provide evidence for your interpretation, yet you demand it of me.


"Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:r2oye.562$Ng.321@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:n7KdnQ7rN4QzmVffRVn-iA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Name calling seems to be theraputic for you.
>>
>
> Actually it is not. The only one I use is liar. And that is more labeling
> than name calling. If I were in to name calling I would be more creative.
>
>> Readers can consider the facts, then consider the source.
>
> But I do label you a liar.I have given two specific examples of where you
> have lied in your FAQs and you have not refuted them. I have given two
> examples of where you have not been truthful in your posts here and you
> have not refuted those. The best you can do is say I am a name caller.
> That is true in a way. I call you a liar and have demonstrated that.
>
> The reason is to show others that you make up facts and are not to be
> trusted. Yes people can judge for themselves.
>
> If you dispute any of the above, take the examples and show your precise
> proof.
>
> Bill
>
>>
>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:nQlye.496$Xp6.220@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:E-qdndrOf9UTfVTfRVn-gg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Bill,
>>>>
>>>> Note that each entry is supplied with a link.
>>>> Your interpretation may differ. You are entitled to your
>>>> interpretation.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It is not a matter of interpretation it is a matter that you have
>>> outright lied in what you have said.
>>>
>>>
>>> The typical reader is not going follow each link to check if you are
>>> telling the truth. Further, that he has the ability to do so in no way
>>> justifies your lies. And in the case of the Muldoon paper the reader
>>> would have no way to check without actually writing away for the paper.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You have the link to follow, which I supplied to help you find the
>>>> information quickly, and make that determination for yourself. Each
>>>> reader has that benefit.
>>>>
>>>> If I included every word in every article, the FAQ of 80+ pages would
>>>> explode nearly tenfold.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to spend 3 1/2 years researching an average 4 hours per
>>>> day in hopes of finding something that will help my husband recover
>>>> more quickly from statin adverse effects.
>>>>
>>>> You are welcome to spend days to put together and maintain a statin
>>>> adverse effects FAQ in your own way, and select what to include and
>>>> what to emphasize.
>>>>
>>>> Go for it!
>>>>
>>>
>>> What the fact that you spent a long time creating a lot of lies have to
>>> do with anything. Even if you spent a little time they would still be
>>> lies.
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:ALkye.474$Xp6.21@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Kb2dnYRibeBG6VTfRVn-pw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>I have never seen you post anything approaching 80+ pages of published
>>>>>>journal articles backing your opinions.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> For backup to mine see:
>>>>>> http://www.freewebs.com/stopped_our_statins/StatinFAQ_031305wTOCv4.pdf
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's filled with lies. For example, you wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Muldoon MF, Barger SD, Ryan CM, Flory JD, Lehoczky JP, Matthews KA,
>>>>> Manuck SB.
>>>>>
>>>>> Effects of lovastatin on cognitive function and psychological
>>>>> well-being.
>>>>>
>>>>> After 6 months, 100% of the patients on placeboes showed a measurable
>>>>> increase in
>>>>>
>>>>> cognitive function, and 100% of the statin patients showed a
>>>>> measurable decrease in
>>>>>
>>>>> cognitive function."
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> This is simply 100% false. It is not in the paper.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You write:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "What are the Lipitor Averse Events reported in patients treated with
>>>>>
>>>>> Lipitor in clinical trials listed by Pfizer in the Physician's
>>>>> information?
>>>>>
>>>>> For a full introduction to the list, view
>>>>> http://www.lipitor.com/pi/default.asp, the
>>>>>
>>>>> information below is from the version updated as of April 2002:
>>>>>
>>>>> Body as a Whole: Chest pain, face edema, fever, neck rigidity,
>>>>> malaise, photosensitivity
>>>>>
>>>>> reaction, generalized edema.
>>>>>
>>>>> Digestive System: Nausea, gastroenteritis, liver function tests
>>>>> abnormal, colitis, vomiting,
>>>>>
>>>>> gastritis, dry mouth, rectal hemorrhage, esophagitis, eructation,
>>>>> glossitis, mouth
>>>>>
>>>>> ulceration, anorexia, increased appetite, stomatitis, biliary pain,
>>>>> cheilitis, duodenal ulcer,
>>>>>
>>>>> dysphagia, enteritis, melena, gum hemorrhage, stomach ulcer, tenesmus,
>>>>> ulcerative
>>>>>
>>>>> stomatitis, hepatitis, pancreatitis, cholestatic jaundice.
>>>>>
>>>>> Respiratory System: Bronchitis, rhinitis, pneumonia, dyspnea, asthma,
>>>>> epistaxis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Nervous System: Insomnia, dizziness, paresthesia, somnolence, amnesia,
>>>>> abnormal
>>>>>
>>>>> dreams, libido decreased, emotional lability, incoordination,
>>>>> peripheral neuropathy,
>>>>>
>>>>> torticollis, facial paralysis, hyperkinesia, depression, hypesthesia,
>>>>> hypertonia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Musculoskeletal System: Arthritis, leg cramps, bursitis,
>>>>> tenosynovitis, myasthenia,
>>>>>
>>>>> tendinous contracture, myositis.
>>>>>
>>>>> Skin and Appendages: Pruritus, contact dermatitis, alopecia, dry skin,
>>>>> sweating, acne,
>>>>>
>>>>> urticaria, eczema, seborrhea, skin ulcer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Urogenital System: Urinary tract infection, urinary frequency,
>>>>> cystitis, hematuria,
>>>>>
>>>>> impotence, dysuria, kidney calculus, nocturia, epididymitis,
>>>>> fibrocystic breast, vaginal
>>>>>
>>>>> hemorrhage, albuminuria, breast enlargement, metrorrhagia, nephritis,
>>>>> urinary
>>>>>
>>>>> incontinence, urinary retention, urinary urgency, abnormal
>>>>> ejaculation, uterine
>>>>>
>>>>> hemorrhage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Special Senses: Amblyopia, tinnitus, dry eyes, refraction disorder,
>>>>> eye hemorrhage,
>>>>>
>>>>> deafness, glaucoma, parosmia, taste loss, taste perversion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Cardiovascular System: Palpitation, vasodilatation, syncope, migraine,
>>>>> postural
>>>>>
>>>>> hypotension, phlebitis, arrhythmia, angina pectoris, hypertension.
>>>>>
>>>>> Metabolic and Nutritional Disorders: Peripheral edema, hyperglycemia,
>>>>> creatine
>>>>>
>>>>> phosphokinase increased, gout, weight gain, hypoglycemia.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hemic and Lymphatic System: Ecchymosis, anemia, lymphadenopathy,
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> What you leave out is that Pfizer says these are what happened to
>>>>> people during the test and one should not attribute causality. Why did
>>>>> you leave out that important part? If you have 2000 people drink water
>>>>> for 6 months they will report various ailments. It does not mean the
>>>>> water caused them. Pfizer made that clear- you claim these are
>>>>> "Lipitor Adverse Events" giving a complete distortion of the picture
>>>>> and this was deliberate.
>>>>>
>>>>> So, yes, this is a good example of your credentials.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>> "listener" <listener@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:Xns96896CB7A6125some1outthere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:MZ7ye.153$LK5.85@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>> news:uuudndUjpebdUFXfRVn-2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:3N2ye.194$Xp6.75@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>> news:xJWdnd-d1M3hNFXfRVn-2g@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>> news:EN%xe.152$Xp6.1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>> news:W9idnfLmY7EBHlXfRVn-pg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Robert" <Robertitsme@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:FOednZk6qqRJz1XfRVn-qQ@xxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://jnnp.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/68/6/750
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/cache/-415956920.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Being a doctor is hard and not as straight forward as some
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> believe.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Statins are contra indicated in hypothyroidism which is what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> presume you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have based on your Super sensitive TSH which is low. Thyroid
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meds are based
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on TSH levels. Too low then meds are cut back and too high
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> then
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> meds are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> increased.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Thyroid impacts metabolism. You know how people go on diets
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> they say to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lose fat and not muscle? Muscle metabolism is involved in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> thyroid disorders
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> as reflected by the CK or CPK which stands for creatine
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> phosphokinase. It is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> an enzyme that is involved with high energy phosphorulation
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> coupling reactions. ATP is the energy source of preference
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> aerobic use while creatine phosphate is the preferred source
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anaerobic function.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are three different enzymes that we can test for. The
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of use clinically is the CKMB fraction that is derived from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> heart generally and is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> used to check for heart attacks. The CKMM fraction is from
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conventional muscle and the CKBB fraction from brain.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There are many, many reasons for CK elevations, from regular
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> exercise to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more severe disease.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To blame everything on statins is just as dangerous and not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> blaming anything
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on statins.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yes, the doctors are supposed to look for "horses, not zebras"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> identifying the cause of a problem.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In this case, the doctor should first ask, did you participate
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in
>>>>>>>>>>>>> an ultra-marathon race immediately before the blood test?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If not, the "horse" approach would be to ask:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Is this patient taking a drug that has a known adverse effect
>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>> muscle damage as identified by elevated CK? Yes? A statin?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Then the most likely cause is the statin.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't know if that is true or not true. What do you base that
>>>>>>>>>>>> on? Do you know what % of people who are not on statins
>>>>>>>>>>>> normally
>>>>>>>>>>>> have high CK levels? Thanks.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> We know the "norms" from the CK Lab report.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's not the point or addressing the question I asked. The
>>>>>>>>>> question I'm trying to get an answer to is: If you took a random
>>>>>>>>>> cross section of the population of non statin takers what is the
>>>>>>>>>> liklihood that a person would show a high level of CK on this
>>>>>>>>>> test.
>>>>>>>>>> Or, to put it another way, what is the probability of a false
>>>>>>>>>> positive on this test? Your claim that the most likely cause is a
>>>>>>>>>> statin requires the false positive rate to be low.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I don't take random cross sections of anything. I work full time
>>>>>>>>> plus to keep the family afloat, because one wage earner is now
>>>>>>>>> disabled from statin adverse effects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which has no relevance to anything being discussed here.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The most logical place to look for a sudden symptom that
>>>>>>>>> corresponds
>>>>>>>>> to the most common known adverse effects of the drug the patient
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> taking is that drug. This is not surprising.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No rates of false positives are required at all. Once one cause
>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>> eliminated, others are visited. Are you asking if a CK reading
>>>>>>>>> itself is likely to be a false positive? If that were common, I
>>>>>>>>> would expect that there would be a series of measurements made, or
>>>>>>>>> the measurement would not be considered useful at all. Apparently
>>>>>>>>> doctors are encouraged to use it with statin patients and with
>>>>>>>>> myopathy, so draw your own conclusions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I am no an expert on anything medical, and would expect you to ask
>>>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>>>> expert your question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You claimed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> " Is this patient taking a drug that has a known adverse effect of
>>>>>>>> muscle
>>>>>>>> damage as identified by elevated CK? Yes? A statin? Then the
>>>>>>>> most
>>>>>>>> likely cause is the statin."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I am asking you to support YOUR claim. Why could not the most
>>>>>>>> likely
>>>>>>>> cause be a false positive due to something else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My comments spring from the observation that, despite the fact
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> the most common adverse effects from statin drugs are well
>>>>>>>>> documented
>>>>>>>>> as muscle damage, cognitive damage and nerve damage, many doctors
>>>>>>>>> faced with that constellation of symptoms in a statin patient
>>>>>>>>> refuse
>>>>>>>>> to consider the drug while they chase other possible or imagined
>>>>>>>>> causes, while all the while the drug adverse effects are worsening
>>>>>>>>> and becoming more debilitating and disabling.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which has nothing to do with the question which is why could not
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> most most likely source be a false positive due to something else?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If a drug is prescribed that has the adverse effects the patient
>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>> presenting, regardless of the drug is a statin, that is the most
>>>>>>>>>>> likely cause to investigate first. This per a presentation on
>>>>>>>>>>> Medical Ethics at UCSD.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Diagnosis can be challenging when it is an obscure but
>>>>>>>>>>> documented
>>>>>>>>>>> adverse effect, and when it is an adverse effect of more than
>>>>>>>>>>> one
>>>>>>>>>>> drug the patient is taking.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In the case of statins, muscle pain and muscle damage with and
>>>>>>>>>>> without elevated CK is the most common adverse effect. No
>>>>>>>>>>> mystery
>>>>>>>>>>> in muscle pain with elevated CK while on statins or after
>>>>>>>>>>> statins.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If no statin has been taken, and no other myotoxin, look for
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> next most likely cause of the elevated CK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, by the way, the statin was discontinued due to muscle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect the muscle pain and damage to continue for months to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before subsiding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Just the opposite is true. From
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://medicine.ucsd.edu/SES/adverse_effects.htm
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Although symptoms usually resolve on stopping the drug, for a
>>>>>>>>>>>> proportion of those who have contacted us, muscle symptoms -
>>>>>>>>>>>> pain
>>>>>>>>>>>> or weakness - or peripheral neuropathy may persist when the
>>>>>>>>>>>> drugs
>>>>>>>>>>>> are discontinued."
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> This is not binary, there is a range of recovery experiences.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did not say it was. You claimed:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If, by the way, the statin was discontinued due to muscle
>>>>>>>>>>>>> pain,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> expect the muscle pain and damage to continue for months to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> years
>>>>>>>>>>>>> before subsiding.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to the what I cited. One should not "expect the muscle
>>>>>>>>>> pain and damage to continue for months to years before
>>>>>>>>>> subsiding."
>>>>>>>>>> And there are many more references that say the muscle pains
>>>>>>>>>> typically resolve upon discontinuing the statins.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Therefore you were absolutely wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Not so. You cited a website by the same researcher I cited.
>>>>>>>>> Knowledge is gained over time.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that I cited the same website was to show that even people
>>>>>>>> you trust disagree with with you. What does "Knowledge is gained
>>>>>>>> over
>>>>>>>> time" have to do with anything. Again why should one
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "expect the muscle pain and damage to continue for months to years
>>>>>>>> before subsiding"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In my husband's case, the CK continued to elevate, ramping up to
>>>>>>>>>>> the threshold of rhabdo, for 12 full months off the statin
>>>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>>>> leveling off and starting to subside.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did not say it could not happen in an individual case.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I say it did indeed happen in this individual's case. And, I have
>>>>>>>>> observed it myself, and I have the documented evidence.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what? I agree with this. That fact that you have documented it
>>>>>>>> has
>>>>>>>> no relevance to this discussion.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Dr. Golomb, whose website you cite, presented at the
>>>>>>>>>>> International
>>>>>>>>>>> Coenzyme Q10 Association conference this spring, and gave
>>>>>>>>>>> statistics on the ranges (in months) of time (with a
>>>>>>>>>>> plus-or-minus
>>>>>>>>>>> factor of additional montns) for two categories:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 1) Time to start of recovery
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 2) Time to recover in full (or to the degree of recovery
>>>>>>>>>>> possible)
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> These tables included the three most common statin adverse
>>>>>>>>>>> effects:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> a) Muscle Damage
>>>>>>>>>>> b) Cognitive Damage
>>>>>>>>>>> c) Nerve Damage
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> In addition, she presented these numbers for the number of
>>>>>>>>>>> statin
>>>>>>>>>>> exposures. i,e,, if a patient suffered an adverse effect on one
>>>>>>>>>>> statin, halted the statin, recovered, then was started on a
>>>>>>>>>>> second
>>>>>>>>>>> statin. Also, the same for a halt, recovery, then prescription
>>>>>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>>>>>> a third statin.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Further, Dr. Golomb set the likelihood of experiencing the same
>>>>>>>>>>> adverse effect on the second statin, if the statin is at the
>>>>>>>>>>> same
>>>>>>>>>>> effective dosage in the 90-95% range.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> None of which is relevent to the question.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Obviously, if the time before there is any recovery at all from
>>>>>>>>> statin muscle damage is measured in MONTHS, that would be
>>>>>>>>> precisely
>>>>>>>>> relevant to the question of how long it typically takes for muscle
>>>>>>>>> pain begins to lessen. (that is after discontinuing the statin, of
>>>>>>>>> course)
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I will accept that if you present evidence of it - not your
>>>>>>>> recollection of it. It is not consitent with her website which says
>>>>>>>> that "symptoms usually resolve upon stopping the drug" This does
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> imply to most people months or years. (Unless you mean 0 to 2
>>>>>>>> months
>>>>>>>> and 0 years) Otherwise please provide some evidence of your claim
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> I can see. What is a typical time for resolution of symptoms?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Oftentimes, not always, CK elevation correlates to muscle pain.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This, again, is the START of recovery, there is another entire
>>>>>>>>> chart,
>>>>>>>>> also measured in MONTHS (plus-or-minus some number of MONTHS)
>>>>>>>>> before
>>>>>>>>> the muscle pain resolves.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If that is not relevant to the question, you didn't ask clearly
>>>>>>>>> enough.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>CK elevation can continue to climb for a full year before
>>>>>>>>>>>>>leveling
>>>>>>>>>>>>>off and then subsiding.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In some cases, the statin muscle damage exists without the
>>>>>>>>>>>>> elevated CK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> In many cases, some level of statin-induced muscle dysfunction
>>>>>>>>>>>>> is
>>>>>>>>>>>>> permanent.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't think there has been any documented case of permanent
>>>>>>>>>>>> muscle damage without elevated CK levels. Do you have any
>>>>>>>>>>>> evidence
>>>>>>>>>>>> that such cases exist?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That was the previous paragraph, the statement "In many cases,
>>>>>>>>>>> some
>>>>>>>>>>> level of statin-induced muscle dysfunction is permanent" was
>>>>>>>>>>> independent. No, I have not seen the breakdown of the cases of
>>>>>>>>>>> permanent muscle damage with vs without elevated CK. The answer
>>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>>> this would be in one of the many statin adverse effects studies
>>>>>>>>>>> awaiting publication.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Such a case may or may not exist in studies awaiting publication.
>>>>>>>>>> But I have been though some of the previous studies and have not
>>>>>>>>>> found one. I don't think you can cite one either.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you know about when the adverse effects studies will be
>>>>>>>>>> published?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> When the journal editorial board is ready to publish a study that
>>>>>>>>> might not please their statin pharmco advertizers.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What do you mean by that?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Ben" <organ@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:da9db30o1c@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Hi Everyone
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I had full blood work done a few weeks ago and most of the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> result was very
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> good. Especially the cholesterol. but two readings were out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the normal
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> limits. And that is STSH 0.08, that is for the thyroid.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> is not
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> working
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well due that I am on Amiodarone and also the CK 390. Now
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> cardiologist
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> reduce my thyroid medication, but said nothing about the CK.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> My question is, are the two related, what is CK reading
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> anyway?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your input would be appreciated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Ben
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here again, we enter the sci.med.cardiology Twilight Zone. The
>>>>>>> dialogue
>>>>>>> above has taken place so many times. Sharon makes a claim, someone
>>>>>>> questions it, she's offended that someone had the balls to question
>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>> ("I don't take random cross sections of anything. I work full time
>>>>>>> plus
>>>>>>> to keep the family afloat, because one wage earner is now disabled
>>>>>>> from
>>>>>>> statin adverse effects"), she makes an attempt to defend her
>>>>>>> statements,
>>>>>>> someone questions her attempts, she feigns ingorance ("I am no an
>>>>>>> expert
>>>>>>> on anything medical"), she changes the subject, she blames doctors,
>>>>>>> she
>>>>>>> blames pharma, (now she blames Journals!) she blames us for being
>>>>>>> insensitive and eventually you'll be dismissed with an online
>>>>>>> diagnosis
>>>>>>> of statin-induced aggression and the thread will end!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> All because you've politely asked her to back up some of her claims.
>>>>>>> There's simply no reasoning with her and the others. This Chung-like
>>>>>>> behavoir is more in need of a psychologist than a gp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> L.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Iraq The Model - About those poll numbers...
    ... Woodward's facts are ... interpretation of what was said to him by those quoted. ... what he or others shared with Woodward as described in the book. ... sprinkled with a healthy does of the cult of personality. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Iraq The Model - About those poll numbers...
    ... Woodward's facts are ... But never mind - here is what I said - Woodward, by his own admission, ... interpretation of what was said to him by those quoted. ... sprinkled with a healthy does of the cult of personality. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Iraq The Model - About those poll numbers...
    ... Woodward's facts are ... interpretation of what was said to him by those quoted. ... If an assertion is made, and not refuted, one can only conclude that the assertion stands as asserted. ... Andrew Card stated as much. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Iraq The Model - About those poll numbers...
    ... Woodward's facts are ... But never mind - here is what I said - Woodward, by his own admission, ... interpretation of what was said to him by those quoted. ... sprinkled with a healthy does of the cult of personality. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Goedel - interesting problem?
    ... Beginning a post with such an assertion typically flags that it will be ... Who is the resident expert of linguistic interpretation, ... Have you heard the phrase "Judge a tree by its fruit?" ... phrases purposely to force the reader to draw expected inferences ...
    (sci.logic)