Re: Statins and side effects......

Hawki63@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
"Larry" <larry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:_EHGf.2$u%2.0@xxxxxxxxxxx

Sharon Hope wrote:


<Hawki63@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:N5EFf.52243$PL5.36483@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx



You said:

"For the record, the disabling and debilitating serious adverse
effects of statins can take far longer to recover from, and can do

more


damage than,some heart attacks."



except the heart attacks that kill you

then you no longer have to worry about side effects


One more time, inability of a patient to tolerate a statin does NOT automatically mean that patient will suffer a heart attack.

It is not binary - statin or heart attack.

It is well documented that statins make a miniscule difference in absolute risk of a heart attack. Unfortunately, the public is encouraged to think that heart attack is now simply an automatic and certain "punishment" for anyone not taking statins - whether they suffer disabling adverse effects or not.

Certainly as a health professional you know that is not the reality.






That's right, Sharon. And using the same logic ... just because someone is on a statin does NOT automatically mean that they are going to have adverse effects.

Larry


thank you....it surely read asif it was "statins OR heart attack".....thus tempting the side effects of a statin could result in "disabling adverse effects worse than a heart attack"..

my comment...the heart attack could kill you...was totally lost in the translation

as a healthcare professional...and one who can prescribe..and one who has personally and family have taken a slew of script drugs for this thing and that...my first question is "why would anyone continue with a med after its use causes deveastating side effects REGARDLESS of what the doc may have said..."

in my experience...give someone a NEW med...if in a month or so..that patient experiences new and devestating adverse effects...MOST folks will discontinue said med ON their own...then come in and demand an alternative etc...

my own hubby...after his his MI was first given Lipitor (his lipids were sky high...AND he had had a life threatening event).....within a month his muscles ached etc....well golleee...we both looked at what was new...the Lipitor...he stopped taking them post haste...THEN on next visit he told cardiologist..."No more Lipitor"....duh...his lipids of course were back to sky high pre MI level...doc said "OKI...let's try Pravachol"....golleee...NO adverse effects...lipids came back down...and 4 years later...continues that way

I on the other hand...started with Pravachol...NO adverse effects...also NO change in lipids.s..I stopped the med on my own after a year...why "risk" any side effects.....

now I take Lipitor..NO side effects...lipids have dropped by half..


my point.....MOST if not many patients WILL stop taking any med that gives them appreciable side effects....REGARDLESS of whether the health care provider says "cannot be drug X"...with an N of 1...it is easy to sit back and see if said adverse effects disappear....and extrapolate that it was indeed drug X...

health care professionals may write the scripts...but they are surely not in your home each day forcing you to take whatever med...

stopping a drug like a statin when "new" symptoms appear...IS the approach most patients take...

my h.o.


To you and Bill: To be honest, I can almost see Sharon's side of the story on this particular issue. We all tend to think that our doctors are well-trained and out for our best interests. It really takes a lot for a lay-person to call a doctor's advice and recommendations into question ... regardless of how bad the side effects are. If he/she says this is something you need and/or something that will help me, I know I tend to "grit my teeth", "suck in my gut", and "take my medicine". Going for 4 years? That I don't know about. I probably would have at least gone for a 2nd, 3rd, 4th opinion ... and to a major medical center at that. Perhaps she and her husband did so. And it isn't always obvious that whatever symptoms you are experiencing at the time are side effects from a drug or some new ailment. Sometimes the doctors will tell you you're a hypochondriac. Sometimes you only realize this kind of thing by looking back retrospectively at the sum of all the events.

What I am saying is there is nothing about Sharon's claims or methods that I approve of. I still think no matter what her husband's experience has been, it is in a very small minority of cases and she has done a poor job of substantiating anything more than that. But you can't fault her husband for doing what he was told and following doctor's orders.

Larry E.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Statins and side effects......
    ... inability of a patient to tolerate a statin does NOT automatically mean that patient will suffer a heart attack. ... the public is encouraged to think that heart attack is now simply an automatic and certain "punishment" for anyone not taking statins - whether they suffer disabling adverse effects or not. ... We have to use medical professionals as consultants. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Statins and side effects......
    ... the disabling and debilitating serious adverse ... inability of a patient to tolerate a statin does NOT ... It is not binary - statin or heart attack. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Statins and side effects......
    ... the disabling and debilitating serious adverse ... inability of a patient to tolerate a statin does NOT ... It is not binary - statin or heart attack. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Yet One More Look at Satins -- and Longevity
    ... drug so that one person derives a benefit. ... "....in Pfizer's own Lipitor newspaper ad. ... One fewer heart attack per 100 people. ... not a statin. ...
    (soc.retirement)
  • Re: Yet One More Look at Satins -- and Longevity
    ... drug so that one person derives a benefit. ... "....in Pfizer's own Lipitor newspaper ad. ... One fewer heart attack per 100 people. ... not a statin. ...
    (soc.retirement)
Loading