Re: 'Bad' LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly


"Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
news:n%Hxf.52$w%4.4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>I don't know that that is true. I recall being warned about the issue
>concerning statins well before Lipitor came out. Where is your evidence?
>
> When did your husband start taking Lipitor and stop?

Prior to the addition of the warning to the label, obviously.

But then, that is obviously knowable from data in my recent posts and
consistently in my posts over the past 8 years.

Just as the date of the FDA warnings are a matter of public record.

You might just as well have alledged that Christopher Columbus was to blame
for taking too long to get to the Americas, because he stupidly failed to
take the Concord jet instead of those slow wooden boats.

>
> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:mNOdnan4w-dS3lreRVn-uw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Have you ever heard of the concept or term anacronism?
>>
>> The warnings you quoted were not included until well after the period
>> this occurred.
>>
>>
>
>
> But again when things get difficult you ignore the major issues. I will
> repeat some of them here for you.
>
>
>
>>>> Well, Lipitor is marketed as a life-long drug, and two physicians were
>>>> counseling repeatedly that stopping the drug would mean death. By
>>>> "staying on the drug too long" would that be AFTER death?
>>>>
>>>
> No. And that should be obvious. The makers do not counsel staying on the
> drug if you have severe side effects. Why is that not clear to you?
>

Then why would you make that bigoted, baiting, misrepresenting statement as
the one you conveniently clipped?

Bill said "You may have some responsibility here. Did you read the patient
information?"

Bill knew and should have known and had every opportunity to know when he
wrote that obnoxious perjorative statement that the patient information DID
NOT LIST those adverse effects AT THAT TIME.

Also, Bill knows full well that cognitive damage, memory loss, and aphasia
are STILL not listed on the PI in the US, even though multiple published
medical journal articles absolutely show them to be statin adverse effects,
and both Australia's and Canada's drug agencies have explicitly warned about
memory loss, as have 3 separate books by Doctors Graveline, and Cohen.
(which have come out in the last couple of years)

Bill furthers the LIE and FALSE PRETENSES BY SAYING "But you seem to blame
the drug or the people who make it. The problem was caused by staying on
the drug too long."

1) BLAME is your word, not mine, as you have been told countless times. It
is your attempt to degrade the topic to the level of a soap opera dealing in
emotion and good vs evil.

The facts are that Lipitor 10 mg/day for 4 years was the cause of muscle
pain, muscle wasting, mitochondrial damage, neuropathy, cognitive damage,
memory loss, multiple witnessed episodes of transient global amnesia,
aphasia, chronic pain, chronic weakness, gout and other adverse effects
causing disability in a mid-50's male - DISABILITY literally, medically,
functionally, and legally.

Cause and effect are factual relationships, confirmed by PET, MRI, biopsy,
stress, neurological, blood, and many, many, many other tests. Also
confirmed by specialists in the various specialities dealing with the
affected areas of the body. Published journal articles confirm the
cause/effect relationship. Published and posted accounts by other patients
confirm this is not a unique situation.

The diagnosing doctors established the condition and symptomology, and
looked for cause, not BLAME. Further, they looked for a treatment toward
recovery, not a posturing for finger-pointing and ranting about good and
evil. But then that would be obvious to anyone, even you, which again goes
to show your have intentionally and consistently inserted loaded words such
as blame where no one else has used them.

2) Your claim was that "waiting" to stop the drug on the day it was linked
to the disabling conditions was "too late," this twisted logic apparently
based upon the assumption that the LIES, MISREPRESENTATIONS and FALSEHOODS
you cynically asserted would be overlooked by the readers. Your words were
LIES. A transparent attempt to twist the truth.

It is clear in my posts over the past 8 years, and in this thread that the
drug was halted immediately on the day the cause/effect connection was made.
The fact that prior to that day the doctors, internist and cardiologist,
advised that any connection was impossible was also clear in 8 years of
posts.

>
> Do you believe that you have any responsibility at all for your husband's
> current condition? It appears that the primary responsibility lies with
> the Dr. Is that right? Pfizer never said, as you claimed, that one should
> continue taking the drug while having severe side effects. Do you think
> Pfizer has any responsibility and, if so, why?
>
>
> You claim that Pfizer said that one should stay on the drug even after
> side effects were evident. What evidence do you have of this?
>

Complete and total flat out LIE. "Pfizer said"???????? When has "Pfizer
said" anything to any patient? Certainly not this patient. Your claiming
that I asserted "Pfizer said" something - anything - to either my husband or
myself is a LIE.

Or, as a paid Pfizer web troller who continually attempts to discredit any
and all posters who make ANY negative statements about statins -
predictably, repeatedly, and consistently - exclusively specific to statins
and no other topic, were you speaking of yourself. By "Pfizer said" do you
refer to what "Bill said"? Is that it? Does what "Bill says" represent
Pfizer so officially that Pfizer said all these lies and misrepresentations?
For you to claim I said "Pfizer said" you must have meant "Bill said"
Correct? Or was this just one more LYING FABRICATION you thought would go
under the radar?

BTW - The use of a Killfile will now release me from being an appalled
audience for your lies.
Do not feel the need to answer any of the rhetorical questions I have asked,
as I will never see the answers, be they "Pfizer answers" or "Bill answers".

Please feel free engage in all the last-word posting entertainment you enjoy
and feel free to continue to misrepresent, lie, blame the patient, and
intentionally dissemble.

Lying, twisting, and misrepresenting seem to be your personal masterbatory
entertainment.

You have demonstrated this clearly time and time again. You are entitled to
your own masterbatory choices, but you are not entitled to my being an
audience for them.



> Bill
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:QTGxf.164$ur7.151@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:6pOdnQRsho4Yg1reRVn-ig@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>>> news:qWkxf.26$ur7.11@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:buOdnZajbv8DT1jeRVn-rA@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:NOXwf.799$i81.572@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "listener" <listener@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns974762202C39Fsome1outthere@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>> "Bill" <xxx@xxxxx> wrote in news:hqKwf.763$i81.437
>>>>>>>> @newssvr19.news.prodigy.com:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:ia-dncyD0JoT117eRVn-sw@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>> The references were a part of the article. Either you respond to
>>>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>>> article IN ITS ENTIRETY or you don't.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I have shown the article does not support your claim. The content
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> references in their entireity are not part of the article. If you
>>>>>>>>> take
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> view then all the references in the references would also be part
>>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> article. Further, I quoted a specifc part of the article that
>>>>>>>> contridicts you.
>>>>>>>>> You have quoted nothing. Golomb did not say what you claimed she
>>>>>>>>> said
>>>>>>>> in this
>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You chose not to respond to the article posted, only what you
>>>>>>>>>> wanted
>>>>>>>> to read
>>>>>>>>>> into it. That's your perogative, but don't pretend you are
>>>>>>>>>> responding
>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> the article as posted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You provide no support for your statements. It seems to be you
>>>>>>>>> habit.
>>>>>>>> You say
>>>>>>>>> it is out there in the references. But don't say where or provide
>>>>>>>>> any
>>>>>>>> proof.
>>>>>>>>> The article itself completly contridicts your assertions. Nothing
>>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> posted
>>>>>>>>> supports it. You just make things up. If you wish to post
>>>>>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> different
>>>>>>>>> to support your lies than do that. Otherwise you might as well say
>>>>>>>>> it
>>>>>>>> is just
>>>>>>>>> there on the internet.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> This is typical of Sharon Hope. She claims something is in
>>>>>>>>> article.
>>>>>>>> That
>>>>>>>>> something happens to support her false views. When it is pointed
>>>>>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> that her
>>>>>>>>> referrence says the opposite she just makes something up. If the
>>>>>>>> referrences
>>>>>>>>> in the article contridict the article why were they included? And
>>>>>>>>> prove
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> point by citing the specific quotes in specific referrences to
>>>>>>>>> which
>>>>>>>> you
>>>>>>>>> refer.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Further, if I include a referrence to something else in an article
>>>>>>>>> I
>>>>>>>> write it
>>>>>>>>> does not mean I agree with or expect the reader to know anything
>>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>>> referrence. The point is to support specifc claims I make. Not to
>>>>>>>>> go
>>>>>>>> off onto
>>>>>>>>> other subjects.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One might ask what kind of guilt would drive one to this distorted
>>>>>>>>> view
>>>>>>>> of the
>>>>>>>>> world?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We know that, don't we? Her husband apparently suffered severe
>>>>>>>> statin
>>>>>>>> AE's and understandably she's upset and angry about it. It has
>>>>>>>> definitely
>>>>>>>> clouded her ability to think rationally about it. The anger in her
>>>>>>>> posts
>>>>>>>> is palpable [even though she accuses *you* of attacking]. All we
>>>>>>>> can do
>>>>>>>> is bring her "misstatements" to the attention of other readers, and
>>>>>>>> move
>>>>>>>> on.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> L.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think it is relevant that he was on Lipitor for 4 years while
>>>>>>> displaying known Adverse Effects, as I understand it, and during
>>>>>>> which time an obvious thing to "try" would be to go off the drug for
>>>>>>> a few months.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Bill
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where were you when his internist told him with every visit, "You
>>>>>> will just have to get used to the muscle pain, if you stop taking the
>>>>>> Lipitor you will die." Where were you then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where were you when the cardiologist wrote, after hospitalization for
>>>>>> what in retrospect were Liitor adverse effects, in the hospital
>>>>>> release orders - "No matter what the side effects, do not discontinue
>>>>>> the statin." I have a copy. Where were you then?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where were you when - upon hearing from a specialist that the adverse
>>>>>> effects that every one of his doctors adamantly insisted - in writing
>>>>>> even - were unlrelated to the Lipitor, were in fact known adverse
>>>>>> effects of Lipitor? Not one dose was taken after that day.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your pretense of 20-20 hindsight is insulting, ignorant, obtuse, and
>>>>>> offensive.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To answer your question, I was probably here. Why do you think I
>>>>> should have been there? You may have some responsibility here. Did you
>>>>> read the patient information? But you seem to blame the drug or the
>>>>> people who make it. The problem was caused by staying on the drug too
>>>>> long.
>>>>>
>>>>> Bill
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Well, Lipitor is marketed as a life-long drug, and two physicians were
>>>> counseling repeatedly that stopping the drug would mean death. By
>>>> "staying on the drug too long" would that be AFTER death?
>>>>
>>>
>>> No. And that should be obvious. The makers do not counsel staying on the
>>> drug if you have severe side effects. Why is that not clear to you?
>>>
>>>> BTW, are you aware that you constantly insist on making this a morality
>>>> play/soap opera by using loaded words such as 'blame'.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'm said you seem to blame the drug or its maker. Are you saying now
>>> that you do not?
>>>
>>>
>>>> I deal in facts.
>>>
>>> Must have been someone else who wrote:
>>>
>>> "Your pretense of 20-20 hindsight is insulting, ignorant, obtuse, and
>>>>>> offensive."
>>>
>>> A lot of those words seem "loaded"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The facts are, in this case, a man in his early 50's was treated for 4
>>>>years with Lipitor at 10 mg/day. Pfizer would have that continue for
>>>>life, and his life expectancy was more than 4 years.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not true. Where does Pfizer say a person experiencing severe
>>> side effects should stay on it? And why would anyone with common sense
>>> do that?
>>>
>>> This is from the PI
>>>
>>> "Discontinue drug if myopathy is suspected, if creatine phosphokinase
>>> (CPK) levels rise markedly, or if the patient has risk factors for
>>> rhabdomyolysis"
>>>
>>> This is a MW definition of myopathy
>>>
>>> "disorder of muscle tissue or muscles"
>>>
>>>
>>>> So, how would a patient discover that was "too long" when the doctors
>>>> were indicating in writing and verbally that the symptoms were NOT
>>>> related?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Read the patient information material. Look in the PDR in the Library.
>>> Check the internet. I never take a Drs. decision as gospel. Get another
>>> opinion - as you eventually did. Could you state exactly what the Dr.
>>> said in writing to you.
>>>
>>> But in any case, if what you say is true then the fault lies mostly with
>>> the Dr. - not with the drug.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Too long would be beyond when the patient discovered that the adverse
>>>> effects were, indeed, due to the Lipitor, which is exactly when the
>>>> drug was halted.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Too long is beyond when any reasonable person would have been taken off.
>>> I think you have said before that you were told the muscle effects were
>>> in fact due to Lipitor but it was worth the trade-off so you stayed on
>>> for a while. Is that not true? But in any case, too long is certainly
>>> beyond the point he began exhibiting side effects.
>>>
>>>> The facts are that the man was disabled by the adverse effects of
>>>> Lipitor, including muscle, mitochondrial, cognitive, memory and
>>>> neurological damage.
>>>>
>>>> The facts are that 4 years off the drug is not sufficient for a full
>>>> recovery, or even a recovery that would take him out of the disabled
>>>> category.
>>>>
>>>> Those are the facts.
>>>>
>>>> Your morality play might want to ascribe "blame" with all its
>>>> judgemental, emotional and moral overtones, but those are your words,
>>>> NOT MINE.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> Actually I think I was saying you were trying to ascribe blame to the
>>> drug. But change the word to responsibility if you like.
>>>
>>> Do you believe that you have any responsibility at all for your
>>> husband's current condition? It appears that the primary responsibility
>>> lies with the Dr. Is that right? Pfizer never said, as you claimed, that
>>> one should continue taking the drug while having severe side effects. Do
>>> you think Pfizer has any responsibility and, if so, why?
>>>
>>> Bill
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages