Re: 'Bad' LDL cholesterol may benefit elderly

"Sharon Hope" <shope@xxxxxxxx> wrote in news:6uGdnWgIVPyVMFfeRVn-
uQ@xxxxxxxxxxx:

>
> "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.
>
>
>
>

Wow. That's some response. Quite bizarre, to say the least.

I don't think this was about your "opinion". It is simply about your
uncanny ability to present a study and preface your presentation of that
study with your own conclusions that, in most instances, contradicts the
very study you're presenting and what then subsequently happens when
others question your conclusion. It's an astonishing and breathtaking
thing to watch.

Maybe you need to educate *yourself* on how to read and interpret studies
in a proper and unbiased fashion, although I get a strong feeling, having
watched all these years, that you are just unable to go beyond your
biases.

L.
.

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. ... As to whose opinion is "right" - that is a facetious question showing your ...
    (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)
Quantcast