FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups 
 ProfileProfile   PreferencesPreferences   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Forum index » Medicine forums » General talk
3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [45 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
Author Message
Bill
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 849

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:45 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Quote:

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.

Bill
Back to top
outrider
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1155

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 9:57 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Bill wrote:
Quote:
"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.

Bill




Yes indeed Bill.

Zee
Back to top
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sat Jul 30, 2005 11:21 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you can
pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to direct a
debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an opinion, not a
fact.

The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate opinions
can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled large
public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking statins. Fact,
not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.



Quote:
Bill

Back to top
Bill
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 849

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:46 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...
Quote:

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you can
pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to direct a
debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an opinion, not a
fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance by
showing how they can help people.

Quote:
The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate opinions
can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled large
public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking statins. Fact,
not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only wish to
state the negative side?

Bill
Quote:


Bill



Back to top
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 1:47 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you can
pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to direct
a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an opinion,
not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance
by showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than a
quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into your
own private morality play.

Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.


Quote:

The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate
opinions can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled large
public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking statins.
Fact, not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only wish
to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive, and the
rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can even purchase
the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify and humiliate and
discredit any poster who has something to say that might negatively affect
their sales! They can even pay to track every prescription ever filled, and
trace it infallibly to the doctor who wrote that prescription by paying for
that info from the AMA, and then correlate the rate of prescriptions to the
last sales call and the 'gift' offered to that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per the
OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing their job
quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed class
of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of drugs in
history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for people in
their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects including muscle
damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage, amnesia, aphasia,
short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise intolerance,
mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as Parkinson's
Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there is no
fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete. This is
something I live with every day. This is something that is PREVENTABLE, and
was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened due to the lack of
awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors and to the lack of
information about statin adverse effects, even on the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and definitive
diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a growing body of
knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily, all
day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I suggest
you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for statin
adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the daily muscle
spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain damage, gout,
memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to alleviate to the point
where my husband can do things like walk 100 yards in a day (from the car to
the back shelf of Home Depot and back to the car, for example.) without
doing severe damage to his muscles and experiencing extreme pain and needing
3 to 4 days to recuperate, maybe I won't be as interested in warning others
away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse effects
information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies and withheld so
other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a treatment to a cure.
With the money they make on other people's misery, they could toss a few
crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss the
disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor, Mevacor,
Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin, rosuvastatin,
cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin; this
class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors, short for
3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the
combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor
(simvistatin).

Quote:

Bill


Bill





Back to top
Bill
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 849

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:03 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:bp-dnU-GTo5J1HHfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...
Quote:

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you can
pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to direct
a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an opinion,
not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance by
showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than a
quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into your
own private morality play.


I'll accept that. I don't know that you have used that word. You have however
characterized the makers of statins that way and speak frequently about
significant AE of statins but almost never mention they are rare. You do seem
to think, in my opinion, that Pfizer has done and is doing something morally
wrong do you not? So do you or do you not think this is a moral issue?

Quote:
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.


I don't and they can see for themselves. For example, nowhere below do you
mention that severe side effects from statins are rare.

Quote:
Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.



The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate opinions
can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled large
public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking statins. Fact,
not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only wish
to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive, and the
rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can even purchase
the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify and humiliate and
discredit any poster who has something to say that might negatively affect
their sales! They can even pay to track every prescription ever filled, and
trace it infallibly to the doctor who wrote that prescription by paying for
that info from the AMA, and then correlate the rate of prescriptions to the
last sales call and the 'gift' offered to that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per the
OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing their job
quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed class
of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of drugs in
history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for people in
their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects including muscle
damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage, amnesia, aphasia,
short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise intolerance,
mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as Parkinson's
Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there is no
fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete. This is
something I live with every day. This is something that is PREVENTABLE, and
was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened due to the lack of
awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors and to the lack of
information about statin adverse effects, even on the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and definitive
diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a growing body of
knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily, all
day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I suggest
you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for statin
adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the daily muscle
spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain damage, gout,
memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to alleviate to the point
where my husband can do things like walk 100 yards in a day (from the car to
the back shelf of Home Depot and back to the car, for example.) without
doing severe damage to his muscles and experiencing extreme pain and needing
3 to 4 days to recuperate, maybe I won't be as interested in warning others
away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse effects
information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies and withheld so
other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a treatment to a cure.
With the money they make on other people's misery, they could toss a few
crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss the
disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor, Mevacor,
Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin, rosuvastatin,
cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and simvastatin; this
class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors, short for
3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the
combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor
(simvistatin).


None of which address the question. Did the original article say that it
helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no.

Or do you only wish to address the negative side. Rather than focus on who
should receive statins and who should not. The point I am making is that you
do.

Bill

Quote:

Bill


Bill







Back to top
Barry
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:37 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Quote:
But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

That's hard to believe, especially coming some someone selling a book
on the topic. I wonder if he published anything that was peer reviewed.

There's
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1079844
which says:

"Conclusion:
....among the many different types of high-risk individual studied,
simvastatin 40 mg daily consistently produced substantial reductions in
vascular (and, hence, all-cause) mortality, as well as in the rates of
non-fatal heart attacks, strokes and revascularisation procedures."

Anyway, cholesterol clogs arteries and statins lower cholesterol,
right? That alone equates to more than "zilch" evidence that statins
can prevent future heart disease among currently healthy people.

Quote:
...if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.

Not significantly isn't zilch, but what studies is he talking about? Do
I have to buy his book to find out?
Back to top
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:51 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:B4YGe.3108$aT1.2632@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:bp-dnU-GTo5J1HHfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40
million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of
heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no
evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical
care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at
heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not
if statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you
can pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to
direct a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an
opinion, not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance
by showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than a
quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into
your own private morality play.


I'll accept that. I don't know that you have used that word. You have
however characterized the makers of statins that way and speak frequently
about significant AE of statins but almost never mention they are rare.
You do seem to think, in my opinion, that Pfizer has done and is doing
something morally wrong do you not? So do you or do you not think this is
a moral issue?


I think it is time that people who have been damaged by statins have a
chance for a treatment toward a cure.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
muscle damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
nerve damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
cognitive damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
short-term memory loss from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
amnesia episodes from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
aphasia from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
chronic excruciating pain from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
confusion from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Parkinson's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Huntington's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of ALS by statins.

I think there should be a pre-test to screen out people who will be
adversely affected by statins before that first statin pill is prescribed.

I think that there should be a baseline NP Test required to measure the
cognitive abilities of the person prior to the first statin pill being
prescribed.

I think that your perjorative attempts at impertinent questions that have
nothing to do with the point of the post are absurd and deserve no notice.


Quote:
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.


I don't and they can see for themselves. For example, nowhere below do you
mention that severe side effects from statins are rare.

Absolutely untrue in my experience. In my experience 100% of statin takers
suffer adverse effects. In my family 100% of statin takers have been
disabled by statin adverse effects. In my home 100% of statin takers have
been disabled by statin adverse effects.

Rare is not a word in any way associated with 100% disability, muscle damage
100% of the time, muscle wasting 100% of the time, mitochondrial respiratory
damage 100% of the time, nerve damage 100% of the time, chronic excruciating
pain 100% of the time, cognitive damage 100% of the time, memory loss 100%
of the time and aphasia.

Quote:

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.



The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate
opinions can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled
large public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking
statins. Fact, not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only
wish to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive, and
the rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can even
purchase the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify and
humiliate and discredit any poster who has something to say that might
negatively affect their sales! They can even pay to track every
prescription ever filled, and trace it infallibly to the doctor who wrote
that prescription by paying for that info from the AMA, and then
correlate the rate of prescriptions to the last sales call and the 'gift'
offered to that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per the
OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing their
job quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed
class of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of
drugs in history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for people
in their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects including
muscle damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage, amnesia,
aphasia, short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise
intolerance, mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is
rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as
Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there is
no fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete. This
is something I live with every day. This is something that is
PREVENTABLE, and was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened
due to the lack of awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors and
to the lack of information about statin adverse effects, even on the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and definitive
diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a growing body
of knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily, all
day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I
suggest you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for
statin adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the daily
muscle spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain damage,
gout, memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to alleviate to the
point where my husband can do things like walk 100 yards in a day (from
the car to the back shelf of Home Depot and back to the car, for
example.) without doing severe damage to his muscles and experiencing
extreme pain and needing 3 to 4 days to recuperate, maybe I won't be as
interested in warning others away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse effects
information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies and withheld
so other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a treatment to a
cure. With the money they make on other people's misery, they could toss
a few crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss
the disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase
Inhibitors, short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase;
and now also the combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia
(Ezetimibe)and Zocor (simvistatin).


None of which address the question. Did the original article say that it
helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no.

Or do you only wish to address the negative side. Rather than focus on who
should receive statins and who should not. The point I am making is that
you do.

Your words betray the ignorance and insensitivity you continue to inflict
upon those who have been adversely affected by statins.

To address a problem and hope to achieve a solution is a positive endeavor.
Your questions show a basic lack of understanding.

The issue of adverse effects of statin drugs, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors,
short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the
combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor
(simvistatin), is not a debate, it is a FACT.

The fact is that the problem needs to be addressed. There needs to be:

Screening to prevent harm to those most likely to suffer statin adverse
effects.
Treatment to a cure for those who have suffered statin adverse effects.

There are no "sides" to PREVENTABLE human suffering, simply a need to stop
inflicting it on new patients, and an obligation to treat those patients who
have already been harmed to a cure, and restore their quality of life.


Quote:

Bill


Bill


Bill









Back to top
Bill
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 06 May 2005
Posts: 849

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 5:35 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:8r2dnWBQa9ZQxXHfRVn-vg@comcast.com...
Quote:

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:B4YGe.3108$aT1.2632@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:bp-dnU-GTo5J1HHfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40 million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no
evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not if
statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you
can pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to
direct a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an
opinion, not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance
by showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than a
quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into your
own private morality play.


I'll accept that. I don't know that you have used that word. You have
however characterized the makers of statins that way and speak frequently
about significant AE of statins but almost never mention they are rare. You
do seem to think, in my opinion, that Pfizer has done and is doing
something morally wrong do you not? So do you or do you not think this is a
moral issue?


None of the following seems to address the question above but rather goes OT.

Quote:

I think it is time that people who have been damaged by statins have a
chance for a treatment toward a cure.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
muscle damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
nerve damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
cognitive damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
short-term memory loss from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
amnesia episodes from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
aphasia from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
chronic excruciating pain from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
confusion from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Parkinson's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Huntington's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of ALS by statins.

I think there should be a pre-test to screen out people who will be
adversely affected by statins before that first statin pill is prescribed.

I think that there should be a baseline NP Test required to measure the
cognitive abilities of the person prior to the first statin pill being
prescribed.

I think that your perjorative attempts at impertinent questions that have
nothing to do with the point of the post are absurd and deserve no notice.



Could you explain what you mean by impertinent and perjoritive. I don't think
you can provide examples. You are doing exactly what you accuse me of doing
and then trying to cover yourself. And why are you then noticing?

Quote:
Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.


I don't and they can see for themselves. For example, nowhere below do you
mention that severe side effects from statins are rare.

Absolutely untrue in my experience. In my experience 100% of statin takers
suffer adverse effects.

Do you think your personal experience is representive of what all people
experience? That is, in what way is it relevant beyond providing one example?
It seems your purpose here is to present that one example, not what people
should expect in general.

Quote:
In my family 100% of statin takers have been disabled by statin adverse
effects. In my home 100% of statin takers have been disabled by statin
adverse effects.

Rare is not a word in any way associated with 100% disability, muscle damage
100% of the time, muscle wasting 100% of the time, mitochondrial respiratory
damage 100% of the time, nerve damage 100% of the time, chronic excruciating
pain 100% of the time, cognitive damage 100% of the time, memory loss 100%
of the time and aphasia.


Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.



The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate
opinions can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled large
public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking statins.
Fact, not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only
wish to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual information
on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive, and
the rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can even
purchase the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify and
humiliate and discredit any poster who has something to say that might
negatively affect their sales! They can even pay to track every
prescription ever filled, and trace it infallibly to the doctor who wrote
that prescription by paying for that info from the AMA, and then correlate
the rate of prescriptions to the last sales call and the 'gift' offered to
that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per the
OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing their job
quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed
class of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of drugs
in history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for people
in their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects including
muscle damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage, amnesia,
aphasia, short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise
intolerance, mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is
rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as
Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there is
no fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete. This
is something I live with every day. This is something that is
PREVENTABLE, and was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened due
to the lack of awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors and to
the lack of information about statin adverse effects, even on the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and definitive
diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a growing body
of knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily, all
day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I suggest
you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for statin
adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the daily muscle
spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain damage, gout,
memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to alleviate to the point
where my husband can do things like walk 100 yards in a day (from the car
to the back shelf of Home Depot and back to the car, for example.) without
doing severe damage to his muscles and experiencing extreme pain and
needing 3 to 4 days to recuperate, maybe I won't be as interested in
warning others away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse effects
information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies and withheld
so other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a treatment to a
cure. With the money they make on other people's misery, they could toss a
few crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss
the disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase
Inhibitors, short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase;
and now also the combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and
Zocor (simvistatin).


None of which address the question. Did the original article say that it
helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no.

Or do you only wish to address the negative side. Rather than focus on who
should receive statins and who should not. The point I am making is that
you do.

Your words betray the ignorance and insensitivity you continue to inflict
upon those who have been adversely affected by statins.


I am saying there are two sides to statins. Positive and negative. I have
agreed that there are negative. The reason I don't say it more often is that
no one argues that there are not. You claim this shows that I show ignorance
and insensitivity. In exactly what way. Please address the question for once
rather than going off on another topic.



Quote:
To address a problem and hope to achieve a solution is a positive endeavor.
Your questions show a basic lack of understanding.


Which questions show a lack of understanding? Be precise. (I suspect you will
not be able to answer the question.)

Quote:
The issue of adverse effects of statin drugs, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors,
short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the
combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor
(simvistatin), is not a debate, it is a FACT.


I have already agreed with this numerous times.

Quote:
The fact is that the problem needs to be addressed. There needs to be:

Screening to prevent harm to those most likely to suffer statin adverse
effects.
Treatment to a cure for those who have suffered statin adverse effects.

There are no "sides" to PREVENTABLE human suffering, simply a need to stop
inflicting it on new patients, and an obligation to treat those patients who
have already been harmed to a cure, and restore their quality of life.



I agree we need to do a better job.

You have simply avoided answer the original question I posed in this thread.
Why are you afraid to answer? The question was:

"Did the original article say that it helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no."

It is a simple question.

Bill


Quote:

Bill


Bill


Bill











Back to top
Happy Dog
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 7:30 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message news:wb%
Quote:
"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message

You have simply avoided answer the original question I posed in this
thread. Why are you afraid to answer? The question was:

"Did the original article say that it helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or
no."

It is a simple question.

Also waiting. My guess is that Sharon is the thing she pretends to hate.
No reply.

moo
Back to top
Barry
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:37 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Why does the webpage

http://www.lipitor.com/cwp/appmanager/lipitor/lipitorDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=prescribingInformation#indicationsandusage

list "prevention of cardiovascular disease" under "indications and
usage," and say:

"Lipitor is indicated to:
Reduce the risk of myocardial infarction
Reduce the risk for revascularization procedures and angina"

and mention clinical studies supporting that under the heading
"Clinical Studies. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease," yet the
webpage

http://www.lipitor.com/cwp/appmanager/lipitor/lipitorDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=moreFaqs&questionID=Lipitor/Consumer/Lipitor_FAQ_21.htm

under "Important information" it says "it has not been shown to prevent
heart disease or heart attacks"?
Back to top
William Wagner
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 809

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 12:50 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

In article <1122820653.015094.174050@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"Barry" <barry@polisource.com> wrote:

Quote:
Why does the webpage

http://www.lipitor.com/cwp/appmanager/lipitor/lipitorDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageL
abel=prescribingInformation#indicationsandusage

list "prevention of cardiovascular disease" under "indications and
usage," and say:

"Lipitor is indicated to:
Reduce the risk of myocardial infarction
Reduce the risk for revascularization procedures and angina"

and mention clinical studies supporting that under the heading
"Clinical Studies. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease," yet the
webpage

http://www.lipitor.com/cwp/appmanager/lipitor/lipitorDesktop?_nfpb=true&_pageL
abel=moreFaqs&questionID=Lipitor/Consumer/Lipitor_FAQ_21.htm

under "Important information" it says "it has not been shown to prevent
heart disease or heart attacks"?

Perhaps just selling modern snake oil. It will cure what ails ya !
Trust me.

Thanks Barry your post is a keeper!


Bill

--
Garden Shade Zone 5 in a Japanese Jungle manner.
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted ( ) material the use of
which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to
advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral,
ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this
constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided
for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This
material is distributed without profit.
Back to top
Just Ed
medicine forum Guru Wannabe


Joined: 04 Jun 2005
Posts: 119

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:43 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Barry wrote:
Quote:
But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

That's hard to believe, especially coming some someone selling a book
on the topic. I wonder if he published anything that was peer reviewed.

I would guess that Harvard profs have to publish.

so what?
Do you have anything to say based on his content
or do you think I should ask about your pubs, first?


Quote:
There's
http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pmcentrez&artid=1079844
which says:

"Conclusion:
...among the many different types of high-risk individual studied,
simvastatin 40 mg daily consistently produced substantial reductions in
vascular (and, hence, all-cause) mortality, as well as in the rates of
non-fatal heart attacks, strokes and revascularisation procedures."


your reference started with
"20,536 UK adults (aged 40-80 years) with vascular disease or
diabetes".

quote from zee's post
"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes.
For these folks, there is general agreement
that statins reduce the risk of further heart disease and, at least
for men, decrease the risk of death from heart disease."

You left out the rest of the conclusion of the UK study:
"These findings, which are based on large numbers of deaths and
non-fatal cancers, provide considerable reassurance that lowering total
cholesterol concentrations by more than 1 mmol/L for an average of 5
years does not produce adverse effects on non-vascular mortality or
cancer incidence."

IWO there was no benefit to be claimed in other than the high risk
group.
It didn't hurt them.

your reference is in line with zee's post.
You have made no point at all.


Quote:
Anyway, cholesterol clogs arteries and statins lower cholesterol,
right? That alone equates to more than "zilch" evidence that statins
can prevent future heart disease among currently healthy people.

" But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch."
quote from zee's post

The zilch is for the three quarters, non-zilch is for the one quarter.
Did you really not follow that?

Quote:

...if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.

Not significantly isn't zilch, but what studies is he talking about? Do
I have to buy his book to find out?

Maybe you can find his book in a library.

'not significantly' refers to the statistical test, not a subjective
judgement. It means that the result didn't show *any* benefit beyond
what might be statistical fluctuation. No, it didn't prove that there
was a small benefit, nor did it prove the benefit is zero.

That JAMA study didn't show *any* increased risk for women with
elevated cholesterol. That doesn't that the increased risk is zero,
but (maybe) that the test wasn't strong enough (I'll leave that
detail go for now). (If I botched that explan., I'll get help
shortly but I think get a C at least.)
Back to top
Jason
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 1119

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 2:54 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

In article <8r2dnWBQa9ZQxXHfRVn-vg@comcast.com>, "Sharon Hope"
<shope@anet.net> wrote:

Quote:
"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:B4YGe.3108$aT1.2632@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:bp-dnU-GTo5J1HHfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs. If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40
million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of
heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no
evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical
care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at
heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes. For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not
if statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you
can pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want to
direct a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is an
opinion, not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any balance
by showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than a
quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into
your own private morality play.


I'll accept that. I don't know that you have used that word. You have
however characterized the makers of statins that way and speak frequently
about significant AE of statins but almost never mention they are rare.
You do seem to think, in my opinion, that Pfizer has done and is doing
something morally wrong do you not? So do you or do you not think this is
a moral issue?


I think it is time that people who have been damaged by statins have a
chance for a treatment toward a cure.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
muscle damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
nerve damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
cognitive damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
short-term memory loss from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
amnesia episodes from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
aphasia from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
chronic excruciating pain from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
confusion from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Parkinson's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of Huntington's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer PREVENTABLE
unmasking of ALS by statins.

I think there should be a pre-test to screen out people who will be
adversely affected by statins before that first statin pill is prescribed.

I think that there should be a baseline NP Test required to measure the
cognitive abilities of the person prior to the first statin pill being
prescribed.

I think that your perjorative attempts at impertinent questions that have
nothing to do with the point of the post are absurd and deserve no notice.


Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.


I don't and they can see for themselves. For example, nowhere below do you
mention that severe side effects from statins are rare.

Absolutely untrue in my experience. In my experience 100% of statin takers
suffer adverse effects. In my family 100% of statin takers have been
disabled by statin adverse effects. In my home 100% of statin takers have
been disabled by statin adverse effects.

Rare is not a word in any way associated with 100% disability, muscle damage
100% of the time, muscle wasting 100% of the time, mitochondrial respiratory
damage 100% of the time, nerve damage 100% of the time, chronic excruciating
pain 100% of the time, cognitive damage 100% of the time, memory loss 100%
of the time and aphasia.


Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.



The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate
opinions can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled
large public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking
statins. Fact, not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only
wish to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive, and
the rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can even
purchase the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify and
humiliate and discredit any poster who has something to say that might
negatively affect their sales! They can even pay to track every
prescription ever filled, and trace it infallibly to the doctor who wrote
that prescription by paying for that info from the AMA, and then
correlate the rate of prescriptions to the last sales call and the 'gift'
offered to that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per the
OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing their
job quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed
class of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of
drugs in history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for people
in their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects including
muscle damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage, amnesia,
aphasia, short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise
intolerance, mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is
rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as
Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there is
no fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete. This
is something I live with every day. This is something that is
PREVENTABLE, and was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened
due to the lack of awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors and
to the lack of information about statin adverse effects, even on the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and definitive
diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a growing body
of knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily, all
day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I
suggest you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for
statin adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the daily
muscle spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain damage,
gout, memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to alleviate to the
point where my husband can do things like walk 100 yards in a day (from
the car to the back shelf of Home Depot and back to the car, for
example.) without doing severe damage to his muscles and experiencing
extreme pain and needing 3 to 4 days to recuperate, maybe I won't be as
interested in warning others away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse effects
information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies and withheld
so other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a treatment to a
cure. With the money they make on other people's misery, they could toss
a few crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss
the disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase
Inhibitors, short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase;
and now also the combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia
(Ezetimibe)and Zocor (simvistatin).


None of which address the question. Did the original article say that it
helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no.

Or do you only wish to address the negative side. Rather than focus on who
should receive statins and who should not. The point I am making is that
you do.

Your words betray the ignorance and insensitivity you continue to inflict
upon those who have been adversely affected by statins.

To address a problem and hope to achieve a solution is a positive endeavor.
Your questions show a basic lack of understanding.

The issue of adverse effects of statin drugs, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors,
short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the
combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor
(simvistatin), is not a debate, it is a FACT.

The fact is that the problem needs to be addressed. There needs to be:

Screening to prevent harm to those most likely to suffer statin adverse
effects.
Treatment to a cure for those who have suffered statin adverse effects.

There are no "sides" to PREVENTABLE human suffering, simply a need to stop
inflicting it on new patients, and an obligation to treat those patients who
have already been harmed to a cure, and restore their quality of life.



Sharon,
Great post. I enjoyed reading it.
I still wonder which of the advocates of statins are employees of statin
companies or Public Relations companies working for statin companies.
I don't think that the advocates of statins will "get it" until after they
become the victims of statins.
Keep up the great work.
Jason

--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Back to top
Sharon Hope
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 30 Apr 2005
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Sun Jul 31, 2005 3:22 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Simple question:

Have you finally stopped beating your wife? Yes or no?




"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:wb%Ge.3039$gt5.807@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Quote:

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:8r2dnWBQa9ZQxXHfRVn-vg@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:B4YGe.3108$aT1.2632@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:bp-dnU-GTo5J1HHfRVn-uQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gYWGe.3093$aT1.1981@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...

"Sharon Hope" <shope@anet.net> wrote in message
news:NOqdnZ1ShMIsunHfRVn-hQ@comcast.com...

"Bill" <xxx@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:miUGe.2101$gQ5.15@newssvr33.news.prodigy.com...

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:1122762063.593393.222080@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Low cholesterol level is just one of the heart's desires
By Dr. John abramson
Sunday, July 31, 2005

I've read that drugs such as Lipitor are overprescribed and that
they
don't help prevent heart attacks in healthy people. True or false?
- C.D., Cambridge

Overprescribed? You bet they are.

About 15 million Americans are now taking cholesterol-lowering
statins like Lipitor, making them the best-selling class of drugs.
If
the latest national recommendations are followed, more than 40
million
soon will be taking statins.

There's no question these drugs lower LDL (bad) cholesterol
levels. But the real question is whether they reduce the risk of
heart
disease and improve the overall chance of staying healthy.

The answer is - that depends.

About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes.
For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the
risk of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease.

But about three-quarters of people taking statins don't have
heart disease. For these people, especially women, there is no
evidence
these drugs reduce heart disease or prolong life.

None. Zilch.

But that hasn't stopped doctors from prescribing statins for
healthy women. The reason: The 2001 National Cholesterol Education
Program guidelines - which define the standards of good medical
care -
informed us doctors that statins are beneficial for healthy women
who
are at increased risk of developing heart disease - that is, women
older than 50.

These guidelines are based on six major clinical studies. But
if
you read closely, you'll find that none of the studies provides
significant evidence that statins are beneficial for healthy women.

Part of the problem is that, in general, we are paying too much
attention to our cholesterol levels and not enough to our
lifestyles.

In fact, a study published in the Journal of the American
Medical
Association showed that elevated cholesterol does not significantly
increase healthy women's risk of heart disease or overall
mortality.
Meanwhile, another study, this one in the New England Journal of
Medicine, showed that women who exercise and maintain a healthy
diet
develop 83 percent less heart disease than those who don't.

The sad news: Only 3 percent of women maintain healthy habits.

If women want to decrease their risk of heart disease, these
are
the issues they should be discussing with their doctors, not
cholesterol.

Dr. John Abramson teaches at Harvard Medical School and is the
author
of ``Overdosed America.'' E-mail him at
heraldfea{AT}bostonherald.com;
put ``Mr. M.D.'' in the subject field; or write to Mr. M.D., Boston
Herald Features Department, P.O. Box 55843, Boston


Note that this says:

"About one-quarter of the people currently taking a
cholesterol-lowering drug already have heart disease or diabetes.
For
these folks, there is general agreement that statins reduce the risk
of
further heart disease and, at least for men, decrease the risk of
death
from heart disease."

And this is where the debate should be - where to draw the line. Not
if statins are good or evil.


Your reply is such a crock. You introduce "good or evil" so that you
can pretend there is a debate and that it is specious. If you want
to direct a debate, start a new OP thread and offer something that is
an opinion, not a fact.


You have only posted on how evil statins are and never shown any
balance by showing how they can help people.

Show me one post where I use the word "evil" in any context other than
a quote from you. You are the one who insists on morphing reality into
your own private morality play.


I'll accept that. I don't know that you have used that word. You have
however characterized the makers of statins that way and speak
frequently about significant AE of statins but almost never mention they
are rare. You do seem to think, in my opinion, that Pfizer has done and
is doing something morally wrong do you not? So do you or do you not
think this is a moral issue?


None of the following seems to address the question above but rather goes
OT.


I think it is time that people who have been damaged by statins have a
chance for a treatment toward a cure.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE muscle damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE nerve damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE cognitive damage from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE short-term memory loss from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE amnesia episodes from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE aphasia from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE chronic excruciating pain from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE confusion from statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE unmasking of Parkinson's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE unmasking of Huntington's Disease by statins.

I think that it is time that not one more person should suffer
PREVENTABLE unmasking of ALS by statins.

I think there should be a pre-test to screen out people who will be
adversely affected by statins before that first statin pill is
prescribed.

I think that there should be a baseline NP Test required to measure the
cognitive abilities of the person prior to the first statin pill being
prescribed.

I think that your perjorative attempts at impertinent questions that have
nothing to do with the point of the post are absurd and deserve no
notice.



Could you explain what you mean by impertinent and perjoritive. I don't
think you can provide examples. You are doing exactly what you accuse me
of doing and then trying to cover yourself. And why are you then noticing?

Please stop misrepresenting my posts. People can read my posts.


I don't and they can see for themselves. For example, nowhere below do
you mention that severe side effects from statins are rare.

Absolutely untrue in my experience. In my experience 100% of statin
takers suffer adverse effects.

Do you think your personal experience is representive of what all people
experience? That is, in what way is it relevant beyond providing one
example? It seems your purpose here is to present that one example, not
what people should expect in general.

In my family 100% of statin takers have been disabled by statin adverse
effects. In my home 100% of statin takers have been disabled by statin
adverse effects.

Rare is not a word in any way associated with 100% disability, muscle
damage 100% of the time, muscle wasting 100% of the time, mitochondrial
respiratory damage 100% of the time, nerve damage 100% of the time,
chronic excruciating pain 100% of the time, cognitive damage 100% of the
time, memory loss 100% of the time and aphasia.


Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.



The difference is obvious to us all, and those who want to debate
opinions can weigh in on your thread.

This post was quite straightforward. Published placebo controlled
large public trials show no benefit for 3/4 of the people taking
statins. Fact, not opinion.

No debate. No brag, just fact.


And did it not also say that it helped 1/4. Yes or no. Or do you only
wish to state the negative side?

Statin adverse effects are fact. I post references to factual
information on statin adverse effects.

Pfizer has a $10 billion per year incentive to portray the positive,
and the rest of the statin industry has like funds for this. They can
even purchase the services of newsgroup trolls who attempt to villify
and humiliate and discredit any poster who has something to say that
might negatively affect their sales! They can even pay to track every
prescription ever filled, and trace it infallibly to the doctor who
wrote that prescription by paying for that info from the AMA, and then
correlate the rate of prescriptions to the last sales call and the
'gift' offered to that individual doctor.

The FACT that 75% of all people taking statins derive no benefit, per
the OP, indicates that Pfizer and the other drug companies are doing
their job quite well.

The FACT that 75% of all the people taking the most widely prescribed
class of drugs in the world, and the most widely prescribed class of
drugs in history, may not be aware of the risks is of concern.

Particularly because the risks can include complete disability for
people in their mid '50's or younger, rising from adverse effects
including muscle damage, chronic excruciating pain, cognitive damage,
amnesia, aphasia, short-term memory loss, neuropathy, fatigue, exercise
intolerance, mitochondrial damage, and more. Then there is
rhabdomyolysis.

Then there is the risk of unmasking a serious condition such as
Parkinson's Disease, Huntington's Disease, ALS, and others.

These risks are not well understood by patients, and there is repeated
evidence that prescribing doctors are not well aware of them.

The damage that these adverse effects can do is long-lasting and there
is no fully-effective treatment to date, and recovery is not complete.
This is something I live with every day. This is something that is
PREVENTABLE, and was PREVENTABLE in my husband's case, but it happened
due to the lack of awareness of the prescribing and treating doctors
and to the lack of information about statin adverse effects, even on
the web.

That lack of information on adverse effects still exists, in terms of
studies, particularly studies that establish an effective and
definitive diagnosis and a TREATMENT TO A CURE, but at least there is a
growing body of knowledge on the net now that acknowledges these side
effects.

If it disturbs you that statin adverse effects are on my mind daily,
all day, day and night, as they continue to disable my husband, then I
suggest you find a way to fund research into a TREATMENT TO A CURE for
statin adverse effects. Until that chronic excruciating pain, the
daily muscle spasms, the muscle damage, mitochondrial respiratory chain
damage, gout, memory loss and neuropathy, for example, start to
alleviate to the point where my husband can do things like walk 100
yards in a day (from the car to the back shelf of Home Depot and back
to the car, for example.) without doing severe damage to his muscles
and experiencing extreme pain and needing 3 to 4 days to recuperate,
maybe I won't be as interested in warning others away.

Maybe you should get your keepers to release some of the adverse
effects information they are sitting on, gathered from other studies
and withheld so other researchers cannot get to it to work towards a
treatment to a cure. With the money they make on other people's misery,
they could toss a few crumbs in that direction.

If the cure were successful, it might tend to make fewer people discuss
the disabling adverse effects of statins, including Lipitor, Crestor,
Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka atorvastatin,
rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin, pravastatin, and
simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as HMG-CoAReductase
Inhibitors, short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl Coenzyme A Reductase;
and now also the combination drug, Vytorin, with both Zetia
(Ezetimibe)and Zocor (simvistatin).


None of which address the question. Did the original article say that it
helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or no.

Or do you only wish to address the negative side. Rather than focus on
who should receive statins and who should not. The point I am making is
that you do.

Your words betray the ignorance and insensitivity you continue to inflict
upon those who have been adversely affected by statins.


I am saying there are two sides to statins. Positive and negative. I have
agreed that there are negative. The reason I don't say it more often is
that no one argues that there are not. You claim this shows that I show
ignorance and insensitivity. In exactly what way. Please address the
question for once rather than going off on another topic.



To address a problem and hope to achieve a solution is a positive
endeavor. Your questions show a basic lack of understanding.


Which questions show a lack of understanding? Be precise. (I suspect you
will not be able to answer the question.)

The issue of adverse effects of statin drugs, including Lipitor,
Crestor, Mevacor, Pravachol, Zocor, Lescol, and Baycol, aka
atorvastatin, rosuvastatin, cerivastatin, fluvastatin, lovastatin,
pravastatin, and simvastatin; this class of drugs also known as
HMG-CoAReductase Inhibitors, short for 3-Hydroxy-3-Methyl-Glutaryl
Coenzyme A Reductase; and now also the combination drug, Vytorin, with
both Zetia (Ezetimibe)and Zocor (simvistatin), is not a debate, it is a
FACT.


I have already agreed with this numerous times.

The fact is that the problem needs to be addressed. There needs to be:

Screening to prevent harm to those most likely to suffer statin adverse
effects.
Treatment to a cure for those who have suffered statin adverse effects.

There are no "sides" to PREVENTABLE human suffering, simply a need to
stop inflicting it on new patients, and an obligation to treat those
patients who have already been harmed to a cure, and restore their
quality of life.



I agree we need to do a better job.

You have simply avoided answer the original question I posed in this
thread. Why are you afraid to answer? The question was:

"Did the original article say that it helped 1/4 of the people. Yes or
no."

It is a simple question.

Bill



Bill


Bill


Bill













Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 1 of 3 [45 Posts] Goto page:  1, 2, 3 Next
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Dec 13, 2018 8:23 am | All times are GMT
Forum index » Medicine forums » General talk
Jump to:  

Similar Topics
Topic Author Forum Replies Last Post
No new posts Diet supplements don't benefit cancer patients: journal J cancer 0 Wed Jul 19, 2006 10:01 am
No new posts genetic variation, detoxifying enzymes, statins and neuro... eml cardiology 0 Mon Jul 17, 2006 11:49 am
No new posts Statins, low cholesterol and haemorrhagic stroke Sharon Hope cardiology 1 Sat Jul 15, 2006 3:38 pm
No new posts Omega-3 fatty acids benefit children with depression Matti Narkia nutrition 1 Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:06 pm
No new posts Only 11% of primary care physicians (in Wisconsin) believ... J cancer 0 Mon Jul 10, 2006 12:10 am

Copyright © 2004-2005 DeniX Solutions SRL
Other DeniX Solutions sites: email marketing campaigns , electronics forum, Science forum, Unix/Linux blog, Unix/Linux documentation, Unix/Linux forums


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.0483s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0024s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]