Re: CABG Alzhelimer's Study


"Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:Rsednf_tCZ3Mu4jeRVn-vw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Robert" <Robertitsme@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:yZqdnerK0tfIhojeRVn-1A@xxxxxxxxxx
> >
> > "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> > news:IKWdndkODPJKm4jeRVn-3Q@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >>
> >> "Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message
> >> news:1125440727.299469.238950@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> >> >
> >> > Sharon Hope wrote:
> >> >> Jim,
> >> >>
> >> >> Your point that there is only a small difference in some of the
tests
> > is
> >> >> well taken, but the study gave a snapshot at 6 months of a drug that
> >> >> is
> >> >> supposed to be taken for life.
> >> >>
> >> >> I know, because I have seen it, that the deficit increases with time
> >> >> on
> >> >> the
> >> >> treatment. This is an early warning test.
> >> >>
> >> >> When you live with a high-achieving high-functioning type-A who
> > degrades
> >> >> during 4 years of Lipitor to below the 1percentile, there is no
doubt
> >> >> that
> >> >> at 6 months there was no 'meaningful' loss, but a measurable loss.
> >> >> Had
> >> >> we
> >> >> had a test to warn at 6 months that the damage was already under
way,
> >> >> that
> >> >> would have been 'significant' information, even if the cognitive
> >> >> damage
> >> >> at
> >> >> that time was not considered 'significant.'
> >> >>
> >> >> Now, after 3 + years off the Lipitor and cognitive rehabilitation
> >> >> therapy,
> >> >> it is 'impaired.'
> >> >>
> >> >> Preventable life-altering damage, for which we did not have the
luxury
> > of
> >> >> early warning. Now that early warning is on record - in 3 different
> >> >> tests
> >> >> during 2 different trials.
> >> >
> >> > COMMENT:
> >> > The problem is
> >>
> >>
> >> See, I told you what the problem is. Clearly and concisely. You just
> > don't
> >> like the problem.
> >>
> >> Changing "the problem" to what you want to pontificate on does not
solve
> >> "the problem" of my husband's health.
> >>
> >> Why not solve that, then maybe I will have the time to read your
> >> philosophical pontification. Right now there is a real-life,
real-pain,
> >> real-disability, real-life-altering PROBLEM to be solved.
> >
> > One solution to the high rate of damage would be to discontinue the use
of
> > statins and thus no further research into the ill effects of a drug that
> > is
> > discontinued would be worth it in research money.
>
> That is not a solution to the problems of those disabled by statins. The
> solution is to determine a treatment to restore people's health.
>
> That means identifying the aspects of the statin drugs that are
neurotoxic,
> and myotoxic. That means admitting the harm, and identifying the
mechanism,
> and repairing the damage.
>
> THAT is the solution.
>
> However, I take issue with the implication that the more people who are
> harmed the better off they are.
> To continue inflicting PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is unconscionable.

I did not say that and again you are distorting what I said. What I said and
most research papers say in the very beginning Preface and Introduction to
the research and most research proposals say in order to gain funding is:
Please give me money to do research on this problem BECAUSE it is the most
popular drug in the world and the most prescribed drug in the world and thus
this study is important.



.

Relevant Pages