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 3 of 3 [45 Posts] View previous topic :: View next topic
Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
Author Message
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:03 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Quote:
"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.

COMMENT:

Yep, she's a bigot. And it's pretty rare to find an honest bigot. Her
husband is ostensibly (but unprovably) the sufferer of what IS provably
a rare statin side effect, and she's nevertheless out crucading for
people getting a statin to be given some kind of test to make sure
nothing bad will happen to THEM. She figures her own rare personal
experience should make policy for everybody; people who will almost
certainly never see anything like she thinks she's seen. Narcissism on
stilts, is what this is.

You know, I wish there was a test we could give *everybody* to make
sure nothing bad would happen to them that day. On the street, on the
freeway, whatever. Alas, there isn't. We risk our lives to live as we
choose. All of us, everyday. Some of us lose at the gamble. We get
rear-ended and the gas tank burns and we end up covered with burn
scars, and now we have to find a witch. It's got to be the maker of the
Pinto or the Crown Victoria. This is pure Ralph Naderism of finding
somebody to blame for every single bad experience in life, excepting
maybe the weather. Witchhuntery. It's people who get a bad spin of the
roulette wheel or casino slots of life, and are complaining to the
casino manager that they've had bad really bad luck, unusually bad
luck, and now want their money back.

You can go through your entire life finding people who've had bad luck
in casinos, but such is human nature most of them are too embarrassed
to admit it. It takes a real egoist or paranoic to decide they've been
*specially* victimized in a casino.

Well, read the fine print at the bottom of your contract (or package
insert). Your milage may vary. Your stock MAY LOSE VALUE. You may have
a drug side effect, and if you're incredibly unlucky, it may be a very
bad one. This is planet Earth. You are an adult. There are no
guarantees here. Nobody gets out of it alive, and some people have a
very bad ride. I beg your pardon, we never promised you a rose garden.

GROW UP. If you lost money, you were not necessarily cheated. If your
gizmo breaks, you were not necessarily swindled. If you have a bad
medical experience, you were not necessarily the victim of incompetence
or sloth. And if your car crashes, it is almost surely NOT because it
was built to be "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED." If you start thinking this way,
here is my message to you: you are nuts. You are hysterical, you are
paranoid, you are narcissistic, and you are still a child. We wish you
would get some treatment, unless you really are under 18 years old (in
which case we just wish you'd go someplace else until time fixes your
problem of self-centeredness.)

Thank you.

SBH
Back to top
outrider
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1155

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 4:12 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:
Quote:
"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.

COMMENT:

Yep, she's a bigot. And it's pretty rare to find an honest bigot. Her
husband is ostensibly (but unprovably) the sufferer of what IS provably
a rare statin side effect, and she's nevertheless out crucading for
people getting a statin to be given some kind of test to make sure
nothing bad will happen to THEM. She figures her own rare personal
experience should make policy for everybody; people who will almost
certainly never see anything like she thinks she's seen. Narcissism on
stilts, is what this is.

You know, I wish there was a test we could give *everybody* to make
sure nothing bad would happen to them that day. On the street, on the
freeway, whatever. Alas, there isn't. We risk our lives to live as we
choose. All of us, everyday. Some of us lose at the gamble. We get
rear-ended and the gas tank burns and we end up covered with burn
scars, and now we have to find a witch. It's got to be the maker of the
Pinto or the Crown Victoria. This is pure Ralph Naderism of finding
somebody to blame for every single bad experience in life, excepting
maybe the weather. Witchhuntery. It's people who get a bad spin of the
roulette wheel or casino slots of life, and are complaining to the
casino manager that they've had bad really bad luck, unusually bad
luck, and now want their money back.

You can go through your entire life finding people who've had bad luck
in casinos, but such is human nature most of them are too embarrassed
to admit it. It takes a real egoist or paranoic to decide they've been
*specially* victimized in a casino.

Well, read the fine print at the bottom of your contract (or package
insert). Your milage may vary. Your stock MAY LOSE VALUE. You may have
a drug side effect, and if you're incredibly unlucky, it may be a very
bad one. This is planet Earth. You are an adult. There are no
guarantees here. Nobody gets out of it alive, and some people have a
very bad ride. I beg your pardon, we never promised you a rose garden.

GROW UP. If you lost money, you were not necessarily cheated. If your
gizmo breaks, you were not necessarily swindled. If you have a bad
medical experience, you were not necessarily the victim of incompetence
or sloth. And if your car crashes, it is almost surely NOT because it
was built to be "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED." If you start thinking this way,
here is my message to you: you are nuts. You are hysterical, you are
paranoid, you are narcissistic, and you are still a child. We wish you
would get some treatment, unless you really are under 18 years old (in
which case we just wish you'd go someplace else until time fixes your
problem of self-centeredness.)

Thank you.

SBH



Life-altering disabling, often lethal but prventable side effects to
drugs are not rare: Vioxx, PAXIL, statins and.... .

It isn't one bad apple in the barrel. The system needs revamping.

Zee
Back to top
Twittering One
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 29 Apr 2005
Posts: 523

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:28 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"It isn't one bad apple in the barrel.
The system needs revamping."
~ Zee

"Is Paris still burning?
By the way, seen Eileen ~ ?"
~ Twittering
Back to top
listener
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 617

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:37 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:1122919386.512835.271260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:

Quote:
"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.

COMMENT:

Yep, she's a bigot. And it's pretty rare to find an honest bigot. Her
husband is ostensibly (but unprovably) the sufferer of what IS provably
a rare statin side effect, and she's nevertheless out crucading for
people getting a statin to be given some kind of test to make sure
nothing bad will happen to THEM. She figures her own rare personal
experience should make policy for everybody; people who will almost
certainly never see anything like she thinks she's seen. Narcissism on
stilts, is what this is.

You know, I wish there was a test we could give *everybody* to make
sure nothing bad would happen to them that day. On the street, on the
freeway, whatever. Alas, there isn't. We risk our lives to live as we
choose. All of us, everyday. Some of us lose at the gamble. We get
rear-ended and the gas tank burns and we end up covered with burn
scars, and now we have to find a witch. It's got to be the maker of the
Pinto or the Crown Victoria. This is pure Ralph Naderism of finding
somebody to blame for every single bad experience in life, excepting
maybe the weather. Witchhuntery. It's people who get a bad spin of the
roulette wheel or casino slots of life, and are complaining to the
casino manager that they've had bad really bad luck, unusually bad
luck, and now want their money back.

You can go through your entire life finding people who've had bad luck
in casinos, but such is human nature most of them are too embarrassed
to admit it. It takes a real egoist or paranoic to decide they've been
*specially* victimized in a casino.

Well, read the fine print at the bottom of your contract (or package
insert). Your milage may vary. Your stock MAY LOSE VALUE. You may have
a drug side effect, and if you're incredibly unlucky, it may be a very
bad one. This is planet Earth. You are an adult. There are no
guarantees here. Nobody gets out of it alive, and some people have a
very bad ride. I beg your pardon, we never promised you a rose garden.

GROW UP. If you lost money, you were not necessarily cheated. If your
gizmo breaks, you were not necessarily swindled. If you have a bad
medical experience, you were not necessarily the victim of incompetence
or sloth. And if your car crashes, it is almost surely NOT because it
was built to be "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED." If you start thinking this way,
here is my message to you: you are nuts. You are hysterical, you are
paranoid, you are narcissistic, and you are still a child. We wish you
would get some treatment, unless you really are under 18 years old (in
which case we just wish you'd go someplace else until time fixes your
problem of self-centeredness.)

Thank you.

SBH


Wow. I just peeked my head in to see what was going on in the old
newsgroup. Nice to see there are still some, like Steve, fighting the
good fight but, really, sad to see the old conflagration is apparently
still full speed ahead.

The zee's and sharon's of the world have to hold on to their irrational
agendas - without that....then what?

Cheers.

L.
Back to top
Robert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 5:48 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1122919386.512835.271260@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Quote:
"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.

COMMENT:

Yep, she's a bigot. And it's pretty rare to find an honest bigot. Her
husband is ostensibly (but unprovably) the sufferer of what IS provably
a rare statin side effect, and she's nevertheless out crucading for
people getting a statin to be given some kind of test to make sure
nothing bad will happen to THEM. She figures her own rare personal
experience should make policy for everybody; people who will almost
certainly never see anything like she thinks she's seen. Narcissism on
stilts, is what this is.

You know, I wish there was a test we could give *everybody* to make
sure nothing bad would happen to them that day. On the street, on the
freeway, whatever. Alas, there isn't. We risk our lives to live as we
choose. All of us, everyday. Some of us lose at the gamble. We get
rear-ended and the gas tank burns and we end up covered with burn
scars, and now we have to find a witch. It's got to be the maker of the
Pinto or the Crown Victoria. This is pure Ralph Naderism of finding
somebody to blame for every single bad experience in life, excepting
maybe the weather. Witchhuntery. It's people who get a bad spin of the
roulette wheel or casino slots of life, and are complaining to the
casino manager that they've had bad really bad luck, unusually bad
luck, and now want their money back.

You can go through your entire life finding people who've had bad luck
in casinos, but such is human nature most of them are too embarrassed
to admit it. It takes a real egoist or paranoic to decide they've been
*specially* victimized in a casino.

Well, read the fine print at the bottom of your contract (or package
insert). Your milage may vary. Your stock MAY LOSE VALUE. You may have
a drug side effect, and if you're incredibly unlucky, it may be a very
bad one. This is planet Earth. You are an adult. There are no
guarantees here. Nobody gets out of it alive, and some people have a
very bad ride. I beg your pardon, we never promised you a rose garden.

GROW UP. If you lost money, you were not necessarily cheated. If your
gizmo breaks, you were not necessarily swindled. If you have a bad
medical experience, you were not necessarily the victim of incompetence
or sloth. And if your car crashes, it is almost surely NOT because it
was built to be "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED." If you start thinking this way,
here is my message to you: you are nuts. You are hysterical, you are
paranoid, you are narcissistic, and you are still a child. We wish you
would get some treatment, unless you really are under 18 years old (in
which case we just wish you'd go someplace else until time fixes your
problem of self-centeredness.)

Thank you.

SBH


I am in awe of the respect you garnish from Zee and others. If I had said
sharon was bigoted or anything like that I would and have been branded as
insensitive, uncaring, drug pushing a*****le.
Zee has many doctor friends she has dinner with and they just node their
heads in a patronizing manner every time she gets on a tirade.
I don't have a lot of doctor friends and don't want any. I have had my fair
share of interactions with doctors and they are not at dinner parties.
I think there are many people here that need medical and psychological help
including Jason who likes to post here more than actually getting an
accurate diagnosis of his mental cognitive problems.
I find it hard to disagree with anything I have read from you although there
has been a few.
We see the same things from different professional positions.
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 8:49 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Robert wrote:

Quote:
I am in awe of the respect you garnish from Zee and others.

COMMENT:

Huh?


Quote:
If I had said
sharon was bigoted or anything like that I would and have been branded as
insensitive, uncaring, drug pushing a*****le.

COMMENT:

Not if were true. If Sharon's husband had died in a airliner crash and
her _cause célèbre_ was the supposed incompetence and unsafety of all
airliners (or even Pan Am -- pick your subset), it would be obvious to
you that she had some mental problem, and was an airline bigot. And
also why. Ditto if her mate had been killed on the space shuttle and
she was going on and on about how they didn't know what danger they
were in (rather like MacAuliffe's husband did--- but hey, it WAS the
*&%$ing SPACE SHUTTLE. If the thing wasn't dangerous there'd be no
point admiring the people who ride it).

Such people who cannot tolerate or understand risk do exist, and they
are obviously politically effective. They're responsible for you having
to take your shoes off at all airports. They grounded the shuttle for
years, and would have it grounded now if it weren't up there already
(and would keep it up there until it was proved safe and effective,
except there's the little problem of life expectany if nobody does
anything, which is what these people really desire out of life-- to
keep anybody from doing anything interesting).

But the problem in life is that LIFE is not perfectly safe. And some
people aren't very safe, just sitting there breathing. If you happen to
have heart disease and/or several risk factors for it, from diabetes to
male gender to hypertension to high cholesterol, your life expectancy
is shortened. In that case, it may well be lengthened by taking one of
the statins, and studies do indicate this. However, as you subtract
risk factors, the case for taking any of these drugs becomes less and
less clear, until finally you get to a gray area where the answer to
whether it is safer to take the drug or not to take it, is simply
unknown. At that point, we need to stop and simply say that.

However, this issue has gotten polarized. Sharon is claiming mental
side effect rates for statins that they manifestly do not have, and
when confronted with this, merely says that her husband's side effect
rate was 100%. That's nutty thinking. We have people pointing out that
statins haven't been shown to save lives in primary prevention, even
though they must know the studies this judgement is based on, were
deliberately stopped at secondary endpoints before this primary
endpoint could be reached, so *by study design* it has been, and still
is, impossible to *show* that statins save lives in primary prevention,
even if they did. You can't handicap a drug and then claim it doesn't
work.

Even some medical publications are crazy. I am looking at British
Columbia U therapeutics letter (yes, medical moroons from Canada,
again-- maybe even some you know) which argues that even though there
is an absolute 1.8% reduction in stroke and MI in 2 primary prevention
trials, there is no reduction in the 44% "serious side effect rate," so
that something might be "making up for" the stroke and MI. Duh. Do I
have to point out to you that if these drugs had a 44% rate of any side
effect at all *comparable* to a stroke or heart attack, that they
wouldn't sell *at all,* let alone be a multibillion dollar industry?
No? Thus, apples and oranges are being compared, and health
professionals are doing it (albeit Canadian ones). And anybody standing
in their way is labeled as a pharmacy shill.

Quote:
Zee has many doctor friends she has dinner with and they just node their
heads in a patronizing manner every time she gets on a tirade.

COMMENT:

So? I too have had dinners with crazy people without telling them how
crazy they were. Haven't we all? But this here (sci.med) is a
different venue, and lives are at stake. Here, I call them as I see
them, and you get no social credit for saying things that may well get
somebody dead before their time. I'm going to call you on it, and if
you disagree, you can get out your stats. But you'll probably lose. And
if you win, you'll get to see me change my mind in public, as I did
about many aspects of HRT. If you aren't a bigot, you are capable of
changing your mind when faced with the evidence. If you ARE a bigot
(bei Gott--person who thinks god is on their side and is intolerant of
any but their own unreasoning and prejudiced opinion), it doesn't
matter what evidence you're faced with.

COMMENT:
Quote:
I don't have a lot of doctor friends and don't want any.

Another bigot. Shrug. Your loss if you automatically dismiss any class
of people whatever.


SBH
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:00 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Barry wrote:
Quote:
Your reference doesn't contradict what I said. The complete conclusions
from the "theraputics letter" at http://www.ti.ubc.ca/PDF/48.pdf are:

--------------------------
Conclusions:

If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation,
71 primary prevention patients with cardiovascular
risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to 5 years
to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of
overall health impact, total mortality and total serious
adverse events. Therefore, statins have not been shown to
provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention
trials.
--------------------------

"Cardiovascular serious adverse events" were reduced, though there
might be some side effect because "measures of overall health impact,
total mortality and total serious adverse events" didn't reflect a
benefit.


COMMENT:

Less than optimal thinking on that last paragraph. Total mortality
*can't* be reduced in any trial which you stop prematurely, on ethical
grounds, when you just reach statistical significance for
life-threatening events. Do you see why this must be so? This is a
negative finding which doesn't count, because they'd rigged the study
design so that they can't find it, even if it exists.

The second measure of overall health impact is "serious adverse
events", which they counted so losely as to have it come out at 44% of
people taking the drug. If the adverse event is as serious as a stroke
or heart attack, 44% of people couldn't have it and have the drug still
be on the market (dropout rate is typically 2% in such trial, similar
to placebo--- does that sound as bad as the effects of a stroke or MI
to you?). On the other hand, if adverse things counted here *aren't*
nearly as serious as stroke or heart attack, then they shouldn't be
compared with stroke or MI directly as "health measures." Which is what
is being done here, in effect. One way or the other, somebody hasn't
thought this through.

SBH
Back to top
Happy Dog
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 9:53 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"zee" <outrider@despammed.com>
Quote:
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com wrote:

GROW UP. If you lost money, you were not necessarily cheated. If your
gizmo breaks, you were not necessarily swindled. If you have a bad
medical experience, you were not necessarily the victim of incompetence
or sloth. And if your car crashes, it is almost surely NOT because it
was built to be "UNSAFE AT ANY SPEED." If you start thinking this way,
here is my message to you: you are nuts. You are hysterical, you are
paranoid, you are narcissistic, and you are still a child. We wish you
would get some treatment, unless you really are under 18 years old (in
which case we just wish you'd go someplace else until time fixes your
problem of self-centeredness.)


Life-altering disabling, often lethal but prventable side effects to
drugs are not rare: Vioxx, PAXIL, statins and.... .

And, wrong. Wrong as ever. With, IMO, surprisingly few exceptions,
dangerous side effects incommensurate with the thing being treated are very
rare. The more serious and / or otherwise untreatable the condition, the
greater the justification for elevated risk in the therapy. This escapes
you. You haven't been paying attention.
Quote:

It isn't one bad apple in the barrel. The system needs revamping.

So now it's the system, eh? You just can't figure out whom to blame once
you start looking for witches. Is it the drugs? The doctors? The
manufacturers? You take a turn on each of them and all. You're still an
infant looking to be coddled by a vast machine funded by others' money.
You're so used to whining for your needs (and defence against perceived
enemies) that you want the *same* machine to turn on itself at your whim.
Sort of like getting mommy angry at daddy.

moo
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Mon Aug 01, 2005 10:17 pm    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

just Ed wrote:

Quote:
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.

COMMENT:

Look, there IS evidence of prevention of strokes and MIs by statins in
several primary trials. It's small, but it's statistically there, and
in that sense, is real. About all you can really do about it is argue
that it's not worth the money, or is counteracted by side effects---
not that it doesn't exist.

Some have tried to argue that it exists but isn't important, that
mortality isn't influenced, so that maybe statins are killing people by
other mechanisms to make up for the lives saved in stroke and MI. I
don't think anybody really believes that, looking at the mortality data
from the very large secondary trials. If extra mortality from other
causes was there, we'd see it THERE. We don't, as you yourself
recognize. And we all know the primary trials were stopped early, so as
to make this kind of mortality finding impossible to generate, even if
it existed. I think that's sufficient for that argument.

You CAN play the game of arguing that that the strokes and MIs in
primary prevention aren't worth the MONEY and TIME and BOTHER. At least
that's HONEST. It's also a valid argument on an individual basis (how
much is YOUR time and money worth, vs a tiny risk-- only you can say),
but it's one that socialists perhaps cannot come to grips with. If
you're a socialist, your whole society has to come to some democratic
decision on how much money and bother a few months of your life is
worth. The idea that you might want to attempt such a judgement
*yourself* makes many Europeans and Canadians dizzy. Their mental
circuit breakers then blow, and they are required to make a virtue of
necessity, if there's some reason they have no access to statins, or
for some reason cannot take them.

Finally, if you can't admit that perhaps MIs and strokes CAN be
prevented in those majority of people who are taking them as a result
of primary risk factors only (albeit at high cost), then there's only
one place for you to run: the argument that side effects are so bad
with statins that they're just as sick taking them (on average) as if
they went ahead with their slightly larger risk of stroke and MI.

We've seen this argument here. I've criticised it. The reduction in
stoke and MI is on the order of 1 or 2%, and there's no evidence from
any statin study of side effects as bad as a stroke or MI, at anything
like that rate. Indeed, dropout rates are 2% typically in primary
studies, and that looks like placebo dropout rates, and isn't
significantly different from it. If we had *another* 1% or 2% of people
having problems as bad as stroke or MI from their statin, WHERE ARE
THEY? Dying of myopathy and dementia in institutions, but refusing to
stop their pills, we're told. And not getting their data into the study
side effect profile rates....

Say what? Having seen the dropout rate and compliance rate for blood
pressure pills and diabetes meds, for side effects far less distressing
than dementia and total asthenia, all I can say to such arguments, is
that I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell ya. In short, I'm tired of
the "I took statin pills still I looked like Stephen Hawking, but I
could not stop" story. Sharon tells it well, but we've heard it. It
doesn't work that way for any other primary preventive drug. For any
other class of preventive medication or therapy, people quit their
pills (or anything else they're doing in prevention) at the *least*
excuse, when they don't feel well. If I had a nickel for every diabetic
who told me they stopped their shots because they didn't feel good, I
could retire. Statins are not NSAIDS or HRTs, where actual and tangible
short-term benefits arguably might have blinded people to long-term
problems with health caused by them. But we're told that the statin
story is essentially the same one. Why? Why are we to think people are
welded to *this* particular class of preventive, unlike any other in
the history of medicine? I dunno.

I rather doubt that statins are physically addictive or
dependence-causing, and yet one cannot reconcile their continued very
wide use and reported very wide spectrum of side effects, otherwise. Smile
Something certainly smells, there. You know where *I* think the truth
problem is.

SBH
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 12:06 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

listener wrote:

Quote:
Wow. I just peeked my head in to see what was going on in the old
newsgroup. Nice to see there are still some, like Steve, fighting the
good fight but, really, sad to see the old conflagration is apparently
still full speed ahead.

The zee's and sharon's of the world have to hold on to their irrational
agendas - without that....then what?


COMMENT:

Well, it's a helluvalot easier to backbite and kibitz the people trying
to fix a problem, than it is to tackle the problem directly yourself,
that's for sure. I've seen a lot of people criticising NASA who aren't
rocket scientists (and some who are-- but let's keep them separate).

I don't know what the Sharons and Zees would do without their drugs. I
guess they'd be out looking for toxins or polution or bad cars and
other bad tech, like the Naderites they inherently are. In this world,
there are engineers, and there are social engineers. Both are needed in
society, of course, but in my observation, only one of these groups
gets itself regularly confused with the other.

I've offered my opinion as to why that happens. In short, I think C.P.
Snow was right, and of the two cultures, typified by expertise in math
or language, only one has any real understanding of what the other does
for a living, and (strangely) it isn't the one that thinks itself truly
educated. But I can find you a lot more techies who can write a simple
declarative sentence than I can find you "cultural elite" who can
differentiate a simple function. In the modern world the elitism of the
litterati is wrong. There is just as much education and high culture in
knowing when to use a Torx screw driver, as there is in knowing who
knives who and why at the end of Henry VI part III. Maybe more.

SBH
Back to top
Barry
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 2:23 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Well, I don't like double-talk, especially from drug companies, so I
intend to mail the following letter to Pfizer. If anyone has an
appropriate email address for them, maybe I'll email them instead.

----------------------------

Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017

Dear Pfizer Inc:

There's contradictary information on your website that I hope you can
clear up for me. Can Lipitor prevent cardiovascular disease or not? If
not, what can Lipitor be used for?

The webpage:

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


lists "prevention of cardiovascular disease" under "indications and
usage," and says:

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

That same webpage also mentions clinical studies under the heading
"Clinical Studies. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease."

But all that seems to be contradicted in the webpage:

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

under "Important information," which says "it has not been shown to
prevent
heart disease or heart attacks."
Back to top
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1218

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 3:24 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Barry wrote:
Quote:
Well, I don't like double-talk, especially from drug companies, so I
intend to mail the following letter to Pfizer. If anyone has an
appropriate email address for them, maybe I'll email them instead.

----------------------------

Pfizer Inc
235 East 42nd Street
New York, NY 10017

Dear Pfizer Inc:

There's contradictary information on your website that I hope you can
clear up for me. Can Lipitor prevent cardiovascular disease or not? If
not, what can Lipitor be used for?

The webpage:

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


lists "prevention of cardiovascular disease" under "indications and
usage," and says:

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

That same webpage also mentions clinical studies under the heading
"Clinical Studies. Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease."

But all that seems to be contradicted in the webpage:

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

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


COMMENT:

You're wasting your time. The "it has not been shown to prevent heart
disease or heart attacks" is language left over from the days when
Pfizer was permitted to make claims only to Lipitor's ability to lower
cholesterol. For some reason, the FDA has not yet allowed them to
change it (as has long happened with stains like pravachol) despite
data from ASCOT and TNT trials that Lipitor does indeed prevent some
fraction of heart attacks in male patients with multiple risk factors,
especially diabetes and hypertension (which is where the "indication"
statements come from). Perhaps FDA decided a general patient
information statement about heart attack prevention would be misleading
without a lot of qualification about risk groups which patients
wouldn't understand. Who knows what the FDA thinks? It might just as
well be beaurocratic delay, and soon the Lipitor patient info will look
like Pravachol or Zocor's.

Anyway, these sections are written by lawyers. Don't try to be a
lawyer. Read the medical studies if you want to find out what the drug
has and hasn't been shown to do.

SBH
Back to top
Barry
medicine forum addict


Joined: 28 Jun 2005
Posts: 82

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 4:19 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

Quote:
You're wasting your time.

If they demean the FDA as much as you did, it would be interesting to
hear it. Otherwise, they'd have to say one or the other thing on their
website is wrong. I'm curious what they'd say.

Saying:

Quote:
"Lipitor is indicated to:
Reduce the risk of myocardial infarction

makes it clear enough that Lipitor doesn't prevent heart attacks for
everyone. Saying "it has not been shown to
prevent heart disease or heart attacks" is either unnecessary or wrong.
I think it's dangerous to say that.

Quote:
Read the medical studies if you want to find out what the drug
has and hasn't been shown to do.

I did, but Pfizer's lawyers and the FDA should too if they're going to
make medical claims.
Back to top
Robert
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 28 Apr 2005
Posts: 1700

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 6:24 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:1122936551.772237.85460@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...

Robert wrote:

Quote:
I am in awe of the respect you garnish from Zee and others.

COMMENT:

Huh?

Let's face it. They are afraid of you.


Quote:
If I had said
sharon was bigoted or anything like that I would and have been branded as
insensitive, uncaring, drug pushing a*****le.

COMMENT:

Not if were true. If Sharon's husband had died in a airliner crash and
her _cause célèbre_ was the supposed incompetence and unsafety of all

Agree with the rest below that.

COMMENT:
Quote:
I don't have a lot of doctor friends and don't want any.

Another bigot. Shrug. Your loss if you automatically dismiss any class
of people whatever.

Well Steve, at work I would not be able to call you Steve. It would be Dr
Harris. It's that way for a reason. I agree with the medical issues you
present.
Let's just say it's not a fair playing field when it comes to doctors and
other professionals. I can't tell you the amount of abuse we take from the
doctors for no reason at all. Often the only reason is patient care mistakes
by doctors trying to cover their ass by having them blame everyone else. You
want to hear childish rants over the phone?
Doctor A orders a stent placed in a patient and nobody orders a CBC. A post
procedure CBC was done because of complications and the platelet count was
10 K. He tells the nurse verbally to order followup labs she has trouble
understanding because of the strong accent and infuse platelets only after
the labs are drawn and she calls us to clarify the orders. There isn't
anything written down. We call him and he does not return our calls. Four
hours later he calls after my page and tells me I will be held personally
responsible if that patient dies because I caused the delay and screams it
over the phone before I get in one single question about what labs he
wanted. It was a platelet antibody panel and not an antibody screen or HLA
typed platelets. The patient refused to have an infusion after all of that.
Let me tell you something straight up. I have never seen a doctor talk to
the pathologist in charge with a raised voice or foul language the way they
talk to other lab people.
Never happens. We are hospital employees and doctors are not.
The hospital needs doctors to bring in their patients.
The more patients the doctor brings into the hospital the bigger the prima
dona he is.

The doctor fraternity is pretty unique and not all that palatable as the
divorce rate is pretty high for them. The only other profession I can
compare it to is law enforcement cops. They carry their guns around like
doctors with beepers. That's why it's rough having doctor friends. I don't
have to tell you what the toll is and price of being a doctor.
Back to top
Happy Dog
medicine forum Guru


Joined: 05 May 2005
Posts: 336

PostPosted: Tue Aug 02, 2005 8:10 am    Post subject: Re: 3/4 of people taking statins no benefit: none. zilch Reply with quote

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com>
Quote:
In the modern world the elitism of the
litterati is wrong. There is just as much education and high culture in
knowing when to use a Torx screw driver, as there is in knowing who
knives who and why at the end of Henry VI part III. Maybe more.

The latter is much easier to fake. Look at the enrolment in hard science
vs. everything else (with the possible exception of some music programs).
Math, physics, engineering, medicine. Thankfully, acceptance into these
programs is dominated people they *can't* keep out. You can't design a
working cell phone network or enhance the GPS system by mandating them into
existence.

moo
Back to top
Google

Back to top
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic Page 3 of 3 [45 Posts] Goto page:  Previous  1, 2, 3
View previous topic :: View next topic
The time now is Thu Aug 16, 2018 9:22 pm | 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: 0.0266s ][ Queries: 16 (0.0025s) ][ GZIP on - Debug on ]