Re: 'Bad' LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly


"Tony Wesley" <tonywesley@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:1137348634.747935.148870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Sharon Hope wrote:
>> Discuss that with the researcher and the journal editor who though his
>> findings merited publication. I pointed you to that publication. You
>> are
>> free to learn what you will from it.
>
> I have learned from it. It does not agree with your statement.
>
> It speaks of "at very low rates (<2%),"


Zero is no effect. More than zero is an effect. 2% rate is an effect.

Clearly 2% rate was enough of an effect to alter the study, or they would
not have written the position paper, and the journal would not have
published the position paper, entitled "A position paper: based on
observational data indicating an increased rate
of altered blood chemistry requiring withdrawal from the Alzheimer's Disease
Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment Trial (ADCLT).
"

Thank you for making my point for me.


>
> You have repeated failed to repsond to this and connect reconcile your
> conclusion with the researcher's material.
>

The facts are presented. You make your conclusion, I make my conclusion. I
have no need to justify my decisionmaking process and conclusions to you,
they are MY conclusions. YMMV.

That is the difference between facts (That a PUBLISHED PAPER cited statin
adverse effects as a problem for conducting a study: A position paper: based
on observational data indicating an increased rate of altered blood
chemistry requiring withdrawal from the Alzheimer's Disease
Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment Trial (ADCLT).), and OPINIONS (conclusions by
readers)

I would be horrified and shocked if my conclusions were exactly the same as
your conclusions.

> I note when you cannot respond to specific question, you top-post and
> change the subject.
>
>> You have confused my bringing the information to your attention with your
>> problems with the implications of the findings.
>
> My problem is with your false conclusion. Your statements do not
> follow from the information.
>

See above.

Conclusions are opinions formed from facts, a priori knowledge, and life
experience.

Since you presumably do not have the exact life experience and study
background that I have, it would be astonishingly unbelieveable that you
would come to the same conclusions from one study.

Your replies to my posts are relatively recent, so just for your
information, here are some of the a priori assumptions and background I
bring to each new piece of information:

1) I have spent 20 to 30 hours per week for the past 4 years reading up on
everything available on Statin Adverse Effects (Statin AEs).
2) I have spent the past 4 years corresponding and conversing with
dozens-to-hundreds of individual researchers who have authored published
studies and other pub-med-listed medical journal articles.
3) I have attended medical presentations related to statin AEs.
4) I have followed statin litigation, even to the extent of purchasing
copies of the the public record transcripts of sworn testimony.
5) I have had occasion to read test results on a great many aspects of
statin Adverse Effects and have had interactive conversations with
world-class specialists, specific to these test findings in my own husband
who remains disabled by Lipitor 10mg/day
6) I have been living 24x7 with a life mate of over 35 years, who has been
disabled by taking Lipitor 10mg/day for 4 years, this diability lasting 8
full years to date and continuing.
7) My life experience includes over 4 years of correspondence and
conversations with hundreds of others who have suffered similar disabling
adverse effects of statins, and their families, who have sought out contact
in response to the publication of my husband's story in
a) a major metropolitan newspaper,
b) a national magazine,
c) three books, and
d) at least 2 statin studies.

It is what I have learned in this background that I apply to each new piece
of information. In this thread's case, the fact that elderly people live
longer with higher LDL cholesterol.

If you have similar life experience, say so. Even then, it would be
impossible for our conclusions to be precisely equivalent.

If you do not have the same background, you should EXPECT not to get the
same import out of a particular abstract as I do.

As to whose opinion is "right" - that is a facetious question showing your
ignorance of the difference between fact an opinion. Facts can be proven
right or wrong, opinions are opinions. Yours are right for you, mine are
right for me.

Do I need to justify my opinion or conclusion to you? ABSOLUTELY NOT! to
suggest otherwise is absurd.

Do I choose to help others see what I bring to a conclusion? Sometimes.

Do I expect or require them to agree with me? Never! Each and every one of
us draws conclusions about everything in life. Our own conclusions. Some
think about things more critically than others.

So, if you have questions about the facts in "A position paper: based on
observational data indicating an increased rate of altered blood chemistry
requiring withdrawal from the Alzheimer's Disease
Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment Trial (ADCLT)." contact the author.

If you have questions about the fact that it was PUBLISHED, search Pub Med,
or contact the journal that PUBLISHED it.

If you have questions about the differences between the abstract and the
full-text, contact the journal editor.

If you have questions about how these findings compare to othere study
findings, avail yourself of Pub Med and other search engines and do your own
research.

I have merely made you aware of the fact that these publications exist, and
presented them with my own opinion of why these are significant.

If you want to know other people's opinions, follow the ng. These opinions
will include my opinion.

If you want someone else to justify their OWN PERSONAL CONCLUSION, A
PERSONAL OPINION, prepare to continue to be frustrated and unfulfilled. You
are not the arbiter of any personal opinion but your own.

You are free to have another opinion that differs from mine. Your opinion
is of no consequence to me, nor will I justify my opinion to you. It is my
opinion. MINE ALONE.

I may choose to consider your differing opinion, particularly if you offer
the reasons you arrived at it, or I may not. Often this ng offers a unique
perspective that is added to my own decisionmaking criteria - that is what
is productive about following smc.

But you need to accept that I will NEVER feel the need to defend my opinion
and conclusion to you. It is my opinion and my conclusion. Even if you ask
hundreds of times in challenging or insulting or denigrating terms, it makes
no difference. It is MY OPINION, MINE ALONE.

>> If the import and implications of the publication hurts you too much to
>> deal
>> with it, I agree you should not ponder it further.
>
> I am realizing this discussion is futile. You are caught in a
> fabrication and cannot find a way out from it.
>

You use the term fabrication in connection with my opinion, and that is a
precisely correct choice of vocabulary words for the first 2 definitions
from the free dictionary, but ASOLUTELY NOT the third:

fab·ri·cate (fbr-kt)
tr.v. fab·ri·cat·ed, fab·ri·cat·ing, fab·ri·cates
1. To make; create.
2. To construct by combining or assembling diverse, typically
standardized parts: fabricate small boats.
3. To concoct in order to deceive: fabricated an excuse.


That you seem to be implying #3 also applies is somewhat insulting, but
insults are part of the territory in this ng.

Yes, my opinion is something I MAKE and CREATE, and yes, my opinion is
CONSTRUCTED BY ASSEMBLING DIVERSE TYPICALLY STANDARDIZED PARTS (where the
standardization is the published medical journal sources - the FAQ I created
contains over 80 pages of such references).

As for the deception, NO, that is not a part of my intent, nor of my
opinions. If anything, it is my goal to educate.

You have finally shown that you DO have a chance of understanding the
inherent nature of an OPINION.





begin 666 pron.gif
M1TE&.#EA#0`5`+,``!U)E%Z+V*G!Z?____\`````````````````````````
M`````````````````````"'Y! $```0`+ `````-`!4```0OD,A)JY4`W)GU
HSH%G@2'7D8((!&PK#.H@S[+:NK!YLNFWECZ@3^3;&(_(I'+)C ``.P``
`
end

begin 666 abreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(5A ^!H<P(
1C3M*VDMK:KAZ_3S1&!$H`#L`
`
end

begin 666 prime.gif
M1TE&.#EA! `6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````$`!8```(.A(^I$<;>
*0)2JVHLO00$`.P``
`
end

begin 666 ibreve.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(1A ^!H<P(
-%WPSJHKEHK%'@@(`.P``
`
end

begin 666 amacr.gif
M1TE&.#EA!P`/`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````'``\```(5A(\8RY''
1H 3.5'@7M;-JZWS/^! H`#L`
`
end

begin 666 lprime.gif
M1TE&.#EA`P`6`/ ``/___P```"'Y! $`````+ `````#`!8```(+A(\)8;P-
'E9PT$10`.P``
`
end

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Bad LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly
    ... I pointed you to that publication. ... > The facts are presented. ... >>> problems with the implications of the findings. ... > Do I need to justify my opinion or conclusion to you? ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Dugdales Monasticon Anglicanum
    ... " Has anyone an opinion of the accuracy of Dugdale's ... William Dugdale merely assisted Roger Dodsworth (who ... at the time was on his death bed) in the publication ...
    (soc.genealogy.medieval)
  • Re: OT: sea level rise hmmmmm....
    ... I'm just expressing my own opinion about it. ... My conclusion is that it is NOT a quality publication that ... If you want to conflate all periodicals into ... scientists etc. are not credible we will never get anywhere. ...
    (sci.electronics.design)
  • Re: Mexican Laetoli?
    ... > There HAS been a publication - maybe not in the currently accepted ... published in enough detail to form an independent opinion. ... The Royal Society has nearly a 350 year ... the reality of these prints. ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Wikipedia & Music Theory
    ... reading by using the references, google, and my intelligence (such as ... reference to Wiki gives it more credibility than it earns. ... I don't necessarily come here to collect facts ... because usenet is a place where opinion is rife and fact hard to come ...
    (rec.music.theory)