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


"Larry" <larry@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:coOGf.27$5Y1.17@xxxxxxxxxxx
presenting material that APPEARS to support her position but actually
doesn't because either she takes things out of context, omits certain
facts, or draws a foregone conclusion by implication from a study or
abstract. She seems to think that her terrible experience (which I don't
want to take anything away from) justifies this.


Larry,

You may just be conclusion jumping.

First, each citation is accompanied by the link. Anyone interested is
expected to take a look. I often do not post the entire thing because of

1) honoring copyright - often blatently ignored in this ng

2) pointing to specific elements I think should be highlighted - this is a
plain-text medium for many, and posting 4 pages of text and expecting others
to notice the point I am hoping to make clear is not productive

3) Bringing in other a priori knowledge, conclusions, and findings from
other papers, as well as my own observations

For example, Muldoon et al found in three different study contexts that
there was a measurable decline in cognitive ability, or a failure to learn
(which is a net decline) vs the placebo group - every time.

The fact that the study went for 6 months and there was a measurable damage
to cognitive ability - every time to me is a concern. The statin group
consistently either scored lower than they did before the test (which is
absurd, the expectation is always a higher score merely because the same
exact test was taken only 6 months before), or they scored the same. The
placebo group learned.

The fact that ethics would not necessarily permit following these people who
were showing cognitive damage for another three or four years just to
document how much brain damage they would continue to sustain does not make
the consistent findings any less significant.

Given the context of other studies and anecdotal reports, all published in
peer reviewed medical journals, and the fact that two countries now warn of
memory loss on statins (both Australia and Canads), and the fact that athere
are three books out on the topic, I find the Muldoon studies very very
important.

Your conclusions may differ, and that is why I offer the link.

However, when you add the 8 years of daily observation of a dramatic and
extreme example of these exact same adverse effects, and you identify
similar evidence of same, it is compelling. Yes, applying what lyou know,
and have read, and have experienced, does make you look at something from a
different perspective.

Then, add to that perspective multiple reports of cognitive damage diagnosed
as statin related, with recovery after suspending the statin and
reoccurrence upon rechallenge with statins (same or different brands), and
only a fool would not draw a conclusion that the minor but measurable
cognitive decline after only 6 months of a drug that is being sold as
necessary for the rest of the patient's life is a very troubling indication.

Anyone is free to look at the same studies, and draw their own conclusions.

That option was not available to me or my husband, but that is no longer the
case.

So, if you want to look at the Muldoon findings in isolation, or you want to
only read the superficial abstract, that is good for you.

If you are interested in why I think it is far more significant than the
isolated words on the isolated page may convey, I am willing to share my
experience.

If not, move on. No harm and no foul.

There was a recent study that showed statin compliance was BETTER the more
the patient knew about possible adverse effects, the more likely they are
to stay on the drug.

BUT, they are also more likely to identify a seemingly unrelated late-onset
problem as possibly statin-related, if that is a known problem associated
with statins, and therefore prevent major damage later.

The muscle pain was a warning that we were told to ignore - or die of a
heart attack.

The memory loss manifesting much later was not associated with the statin,
and was not documented as a statin-related possibility, and was denied as
having any relationship by two doctors. That the FDA is still silent on
such a serious adversee effect is very troubling.

So, think about copyright and inundation, specific emphasis with full
disclosure of context via link, and the perspective.

No one - I really hope - no one should have to go through what we continue
to go through just to get a similar perspective.

So, no, I am not at all surprised that you disagree with some of my
conclusions, and am glad for you - because if you had the same perspective
you would need to be the spouse of a statin disabled person, because you,
like my husband, would be unable to remember well enough to make it through
a 6-word sentence. Just one 6-word sentence. No, you would not be reading
the ng.

Observational reports are often published in medical journals. Anecdotal,
yes, but still considered by peer juries and editors to be worthwhile.

Presumably you also read the Opinion section in the newspaper. More than
likely there are a variety of points of view (or it would be too boring to
bear). So, do you become upset at a political piece? Maybe, maybe not.

My choice of items to present is of course editorialized by me. No full
page glossy Pfizer or Merck ad is going to list these studies. But they
exist and were valuable enough to publish, so maybe, just maybe, they are
worthy of someone's attention.

For those at risk, it provides information on which to base a risk-based
determination of what to do if an adverse effect appears - and it allows
that problem to be correctly identified as an adverse effect.

YMMV - and it SHOULD.


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: CK blood test
    ... >> likely cause is a statin requires the false positive rate to be low. ... > most common known adverse effects of the drug the patient is taking is that ... damage as identified by elevated CK? ... >>> In the case of statins, muscle pain and muscle damage with and without ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: CK blood test
    ... > likely cause is a statin requires the false positive rate to be low. ... most common known adverse effects of the drug the patient is taking is that ... damage, cognitive damage and nerve damage, many doctors faced with that ... >> In the case of statins, muscle pain and muscle damage with and without ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: CK blood test
    ... >> cause is a statin requires the false positive rate to be low. ... >>> In the case of statins, muscle pain and muscle damage with and without ... >>> adverse effects studies awaiting publication. ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: CK blood test
    ... > cause is a statin requires the false positive rate to be low. ... >> If a drug is prescribed that has the adverse effects the patient is ... >> In the case of statins, muscle pain and muscle damage with and without ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)
  • Re: Cognitive problems with simvastatin?
    ... This cognitive damage from statin drugs is well documented. ... but also the muscle and nerve damage adverse effects. ... case of Lipitor memory loss and cognitive damage has been confirmed, ... Australian Adverse Drug Reactions Bulletin (Australia's equivalent to the ...
    (sci.med.cardiology)