Re: CK blood test
- From: "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 06 Jul 2005 06:22:17 GMT
"Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:-qmdnb5TNqGd71bfRVn-iQ@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Failure to improve is worse than the placebo group.
>
>
That is true and not disputed. You claimed in your FAQs that 100% of the the
statin users did worse the second time around and you have no basis for that
claim at all. You make up your own facts.
Bill
>
>
> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
> news:ToJye.882$ER6.766@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:8c2dnZfUqPeKqlbfRVn-ow@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> You have a different interpretation of the study. You have said you
>>> cannot provide evidence for your interpretation, yet you demand it of me.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You made the claim. Not me. It is up to you to provide evidence to support
>> your claim. You have not.
>>
>> However, if you look at page 3 of the 1st study you will see that it is not
>> true that 100% of those who took statins did worse.
>>
>> You are a liar.
>>
>> Bill
>>
>>
>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:r2oye.562$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.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
.
- References:
- CK blood test
- From: Ben
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Robert
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: listener
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Bill
- Re: CK blood test
- From: Sharon Hope
- CK blood test
- Prev by Date: Re: Homocysteine reduction has no effect on inflammatory markers
- Next by Date: Re: CK blood test
- Previous by thread: Re: CK blood test
- Next by thread: Re: CK blood test
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
