Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / February 2005

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Statins do NOT protect against Azlheimer's

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Sharon Hope - 11 Feb 2005 02:58 GMT
Many of us who have been exposed first-hand to the devastating cognitive
adverse effects of statins have been tremendously skeptical of the "Can
statins prevent Alz?????" headlines, which appeared at a time that
conveniently offset articles in the popular media that exposed the memory
loss caused by statins.

We doubters also questioned how the studies would differentiate between Alz
and statin-induced memory loss.

As it turns out, this latest study shows that statins do NOT prevent
Alzheimer's:

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-02
-10T211401Z_01_B371082_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-STATINS-DEMENTIA-DC.XML

     Reuters.uk, UK - 5 hours ago
     NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs
belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem
to have any effect ...

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7598600
     Reuters - 5 hours ago
     NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs
belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem
to have any effect ...

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=488976
     ABC News - 5 hours ago
     Feb 10, 2005 - NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of
cholesterol-lowering drugs belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor
or Pravacol, does not seem ...

Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:15 PM GMT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs belonging
to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem to have any
effect on the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's disease, according to findings
from a new study.

This supports the results of another study, but run counter other study
findings that have linked statin use with a reduced risk of dementia.

The current study involved elderly residents living in Cache County, Utah,
who were evaluated for statin use and dementia between 1995 and 1997 and
then again between 1998 and 2000.

Dr. John C. S. Breitner, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in
Seattle, and colleagues report their findings in the Archives of General
Psychiatry.

Of the 4,895 subjects evaluated at the initial assessment, 355 had dementia,
including 200 with Alzheimer's disease. In this analysis, statin use was
associated with a 56-percent reduction in risk of dementia.

During 3-year follow-up, 185 of 3308 at-risk survivors were diagnosed with
dementia, including 104 with Alzheimer's disease. In this analysis, statin
use at the start of the study or at follow-up had no effect on the risk of
dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

One explanation for the different findings could be that after dementia sets
in, patients may simply be less likely to use statins, along with other
drugs.

Studies with sufficient statistical power are needed to assess the effect of
statin use on dementia risk, the authors note. "Until such research is able
to demonstrate more promising results, however, we suggest that costly
randomized trials of statins are premature."

SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Sharon Hope - 11 Feb 2005 03:04 GMT
Abstract from Pub Med:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=15699299


1: Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2005 Feb;62(2):217-24.

Do statins reduce risk of incident dementia and Alzheimer disease? The Cache
County Study.

Zandi PP, Sparks DL, Khachaturian AS, Tschanz J, Norton M, Steinberg M,
Welsh-Bohmer KA, Breitner JC; Cache County Study investigators.

Department of Mental Health, Bloomberg School of Public Health, Johns
Hopkins
University, Baltimore, MD, USA.

BACKGROUND: Prior reports suggest reduced occurrence of dementia and
Alzheimer
disease (AD) in statin users, but, to our knowledge, no prospective studies
relate statin use and dementia incidence. OBJECTIVE: To examine the
association
of statin use with both prevalence and incidence of dementia and AD. DESIGN:
Cross-sectional studies of prevalence and incidence and a prospective study
of
incidence of dementia and AD among 5092 elderly residents (aged 65 years or
older) of a single county. Participants were assessed at home in 1995-1997
and
again in 1998-2000. A detailed visual inventory of medicines, including
statins
and other lipid-lowering agents, was collected at both assessments. MAIN
OUTCOME
MEASURES: Diagnosis of dementia and of AD. RESULTS: From 4895 participants
with
data sufficient to determine cognitive status, we identified 355 cases of
prevalent dementia (200 with AD) at initial assessment. Statin use was
inversely
associated with prevalence of dementia (adjusted odds ratio, 0.44; 95%
confidence interval, 0.17-0.94). Three years later, we identified 185 cases
of
incident dementia (104 with AD) among 3308 survivors at risk. Statin use at
baseline did not predict incidence of dementia or AD (adjusted hazard ratio
for
dementia, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.53-2.34; adjusted hazard ratio
for
AD, 1.19; 95% confidence interval, 0.35-2.96), nor did statin use at
follow-up
(adjusted odds ratio for dementia, 1.04; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.81;
adjusted odds ratio for AD, 0.85; 95% confidence interval, 0.32-1.88).
CONCLUSIONS: Although statin use might be less frequent in those with
prevalent
dementia, we found no association between statin use and subsequent onset of
dementia or AD. Further research is warranted before costly dementia
prevention
trials with statins are undertaken.

PMID: 15699299 [PubMed - in process]

> Many of us who have been exposed first-hand to the devastating cognitive
> adverse effects of statins have been tremendously skeptical of the "Can
[quoted text clipped - 69 lines]
>
> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Sharon Hope - 11 Feb 2005 06:16 GMT
Quote from the full text of the study:

"This result suggests

that statins do not reduce the risk of dementia by

as much as half. Furthermore, 2 other longitudinal studies

of statin use and AD42,43 find results that closely approximate

ours-ie, a null result in prospective analyses

but an apparent "protective" effect in cross-sectional

or simulated case-control analyses. In all, the prospective

analyses in this and the other 2 studies fail to find

evidence of protection with statins in more than 33000

person-years of observation."

42. Li G, Higdon R, Kukull W, Peskind E, Moore KV, Tsuang D, van Belle G,
McCornick

W, Bowen JD, Teri L, Schellenberg GD, Larson EB. Statin therapy and risk

of dementia in the elderly: a community-based prospective cohort study.
Neurology.

2004;63:1624-1628.

43. Rea TD, Breitner JC, Psaty BM, Fitzpatrick AL, Lopez OL, Newman AB,
Hazzard

WR, Zandi PP, Burke GL, Lyketsos CG, Bernick C, Kuller LH. Statins and

the risk of incident dementia: the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arch Neurol.

In press.

> Abstract from Pub Med:
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstra
ct&list_uids=15699299

[quoted text clipped - 133 lines]
>>
>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
listener - 11 Feb 2005 03:08 GMT
Another misleading subject line.....

The article makes it clear that there are conflicting studies: some show
no protection against dementia, others do. Obviously, much more research
is needed.

Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins against
this most debilitating disease, alzheimers?

L.

> Many of us who have been exposed first-hand to the devastating
> cognitive adverse effects of statins have been tremendously skeptical
[quoted text clipped - 72 lines]
>
> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Sharon Hope - 11 Feb 2005 04:33 GMT
> Another misleading subject line.....
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins against
> this most debilitating disease, alzheimers?

That hope is what this cruel hucksterism was based upon.  Immediately upon
the appearance of several popular media articles on statin causing
devastating cognitive damage, the whisper campaign started.  No less than 10
journal articles appeared asking the question, could statins prevent
Alzheimer's?

That hope was what caused massive "amnesia" among doctors who had evidence
of cognitive damage drowned out by the hype and false promise.

How many statin patients developed severe cognitive damage during that
period, while doctors were convinced to look the other way?   I know several
personally.

> L.
>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>>
>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Bill - 11 Feb 2005 07:04 GMT
>> Another misleading subject line.....
>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> period, while doctors were convinced to look the other way?   I know several
> personally.

The study you quoted above, however, suggests that they could not reach a
conclusion either way.

Bill
>> L.
>>
[quoted text clipped - 74 lines]
>>>
>>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Sharon Hope - 12 Feb 2005 03:28 GMT
>>> Another misleading subject line.....
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 21 lines]
> The study you quoted above, however, suggests that they could not reach a
> conclusion either way.

Well, they did say it wasn't worth spending more money on unless someone can
get better results first:

"Studies with sufficient statistical power are needed to assess the
effect of statin use on dementia risk, the authors note. "Until such
research is able to demonstrate more promising results, however, we
suggest that costly randomized trials of statins are premature."

BTW, one of the authors of this study also wrote this:

Sparks DL, Lopez J, Connor D, Sabbagh M, Seward J,
Browne P; Alzheimer's Disease Cholesterol-Lowering
Treatment Team;
J Mol Neurosci. 2003;20(3):407-10.;
"A position paper: based on observational data
indicating an increased rate of altered blood chemistry
requiring withdrawal from the Alzheimer's Disease
Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment Trial (ADCLT);" Excerpt
froom abstract: "There was no apparent correlation
between the occurrence of withdrawal-AE incidence and
lower body mass among the female AD trial subjects and,
therefore, probably was not a dose-related resultant.
This might indicate that cognitively intact elderly
women at risk for heart disease and those with
clinically documented AD should not be presumed to be
pharmocodynamically equivalent."

Also, it still raises the questions:

What protocol did they employ to determine that there were no instances of
statin cognitive damage?

And, given that:
1) 5% to 15% of statin users expected to have
significant cognitive adverse effects (per Dr. Goloob
interviews), and

2) nearly 100% expected to have mild cognitive adverse
effects (per Dr. Muldoons studies), and

3) with the reports that adverse effects are more
likely to occur in the elderly (per an associate in
this study, DL Sparks,citation above), and

4) the findings that patients with Alz may be
particularly susceptible to statins (per Algotsson A,
Winblad B, citation below),

to what did they attribute the lack of statin cognitive
adverse effects detected?  Was the sample too small
(i.e., 6 statin users with dementia in Wave 1 and 8 in
Wave 2)?

Algotsson A, Winblad B.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(3):109-16. Epub
2004 Jan 20.
"Patients with Alzheimer's disease may be particularly
susceptible to adverse effects of statins."
Excerpt from abstract: "They generally are well
tolerated, but some adverse effects, probably due to
antiproliferative and proapoptotic properties of the
statins, are matters of concern. AD patients may be
extrasusceptible to adverse effects of statins due to
preexisting aberrations in signal transduction and
energy metabolism in the neurons and a perturbed
cholesterol metabolism in the brain."

> Bill
>>> L.
[quoted text clipped - 75 lines]
>>>>
>>>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Bill - 12 Feb 2005 06:58 GMT
>>>> Another misleading subject line.....
>>>>
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
> research is able to demonstrate more promising results, however, we
> suggest that costly randomized trials of statins are premature."

That is very different than the severe cognitive damage that you spoke of.

> BTW, one of the authors of this study also wrote this:
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
> significant cognitive adverse effects (per Dr. Goloob
> interviews), and

That would probably have shown up in these studies. Also, this may be just an
opinion. You can find other Drs. who will say the opposite.

> 2) nearly 100% expected to have mild cognitive adverse
> effects (per Dr. Muldoons studies), and

We have been though this before. I don't see that at all.

> 3) with the reports that adverse effects are more
> likely to occur in the elderly (per an associate in
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> (i.e., 6 statin users with dementia in Wave 1 and 8 in
> Wave 2)?

That there may be nothing there.

Bill

> Algotsson A, Winblad B.
> Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(3):109-16. Epub
[quoted text clipped - 89 lines]
>>>>>
>>>>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.
Frankie - 12 Feb 2005 17:56 GMT
My personal opinion is that statins do not protect
against Alzheimer, but can actually cause Alzheimer.
My husband took statins for 8 years. I first noticed
cognitine decline about 1 1/2 years ago. I started to
research statins and discovered the cognitive damage
link. My husband stopped taking statins July '04.
Recent Neuropsychology testing indicated early
Alzheimer type dementia. I have no doubt that statins
are the cause. We have seen improvement since
stopping statins, but rehabilitation is slow..... probably
just as slow as cognitive damage onset.
Trying to find a doctor that understands how statins can
affect someone is the harest part of the process.
I thank Dr Golomb and Dr Graveline for their research.
They have helped us tremendously. I just wish there were
more like them.

Frankie
Frankie - 12 Feb 2005 19:49 GMT
Re:
My personal opinion is that statins do not protect
against Alzheimer, but can actually cause Alzheimer.

I wanted to clarify.....
but can actually cause Alzheimer/dementia type
symptoms. Doctors are too quick to diagnose Alz
when the diagnosis should be statin toxicity.
Don Kirkman - 13 Feb 2005 00:43 GMT
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<OZydnRY_JbN46pDfRVn-ow@comcast.com>:

[Re study purported to demonstrate statin-caused cognitive damage]

>Also, it still raises the questions:

>What protocol did they employ to determine that there were no instances of
>statin cognitive damage?
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>significant cognitive adverse effects (per Dr. Goloob
>interviews), and

Sharon, you continue to use that 15% figure (though now you have
softened it to "5% to 15%"; what is the basis for that change?).  I
directed you to the Mercola page (which you said you hadn't known before
though ISTR you had cited it yourself somewhat earlier)*.

On January 4 of this year I wrote:

[Start]
To restate my point, it is not at all clear what Dr. Golomb's 15% figure
is measuring.  I didn't find it in reports of her publications or
presentations I found in Google, and the only clear statement of that
figure is "Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients
develop some cognitive side effects.{22}" contained in a web page I
believe you are familiar with, since it discusses your husband's case:
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/24/statin_drugs.htm.

Reference 22 says in its entirety "22. Email communication, Beatrice
Golomb, July 10, 2003."
[End]

In short, that is still  the only source I have been able to find for
that 15% claim, which we had discussed nearly a year earlier than my
January post.  Perhaps you have a documented source for that figure?

It seems possible that Dr. Golomb has not used the figure publicly, and
an email cannot be challenged or verified or interpreted without access
to the text and the context; if you know a published source for the 15%
please cite it or rephrase your position.
Signature

Don
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.                                --Galileo Galilei

Sharon Hope - 13 Feb 2005 01:22 GMT
Sorry, I understated from memory  - It was from an article I read in March
of 2004, and the number was actually TWENTY PERCENT.

The quote:

"She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or
more of patients encounter some side effects."

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

"Doubts raised over drugs for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost
memory in some patients" by John Fauber, March 27, 2004 - Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel JSOnline.

The context:

A local man who was overcome by Lipitor adverse effects.

Informative interview with Dr. Golomb, including:

"If you believe the clinical trial data, the problems occur at very

modest rates," said Beatrice Golomb, an assistant professor of family

medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who is

conducting two studies on statin side effects.

Those trials generally report side effects in less than 1% to 2% of

patients. And many of those complications are minor and disappear if

the drug is discontinued or the dose lowered.

But, "there are clinicians whose personal experience is substantially

different than what is reported in the trials," Golomb said.

She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or

more of patients encounter some side effects."

As you will no doubt recall, this information is always followed by an
hysterical need by some to somehow minimize that 20% number because of an
overwhelming need for denial.

Usually they start by demanding to know 20% of what population, and the
information in the quote is what is available.  So, they then begin
fantasizing about wierd populations that would disprove the number.

Considering that Dr. Golomb is the premier research authority on statins in
the world, and also is independent of pharm co funding and has absolutely no
reason to 'spin' anything, I take her at her word.  Given that 100% of the
statin takers in my family have been drastically disabled for a number of
years due to Lipitor, the number does not surprise me in the least, nor does
it give me any reason to doubt it.

Given the denial rampant in the ng and the country, and the constan
consistently repetitive stories of people who have been diagnosed with
maladies like Alzheimer's that cannot improve, who were told by doctors that
the statins could not possibly be involved, and who, upon halting the
statins slowly did improve, thereby ruling out the diagnosis, the fact that
the higher representation of adverse effects is higher is obvious.

Sorry, I should have checked before posting - 20%  is the number that
appears in the article.

If you have further questions about what may have been left out of the
article I suggest you contact the reporter.

> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
> <OZydnRY_JbN46pDfRVn-ow@comcast.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 39 lines]
> to the text and the context; if you know a published source for the 15%
> please cite it or rephrase your position.
Don Kirkman - 13 Feb 2005 22:08 GMT
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<ouqdnV_IyKZbNpPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>:

>Sorry, I understated from memory  - It was from an article I read in March
>of 2004, and the number was actually TWENTY PERCENT.

Well, you actually have used the 15% more than once over the past year
or so.

>The quote:

>"She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or
>more of patients encounter some side effects."

>http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

No, you have said (and Mercola says) the 15% you attribute to Golomb
refers to cognitive disability; the 20%, equally poorly sourced (was
Fauber quoting something Golomb wrote, was he reporting an interview,
had he heard a lecture, was it really what she said?), says, as you
quoted above, "encounter **some* side effects."

Fauber seems to be relying on Mercola almost totally in that section
although, as I quoted, Mercola actually wrote that Golomb said, "15
percent of statin patients develop some **cognitive** side effects." [My
emphasis]  In that part of his article Fauber seems to be paraphrasing
and quoting Mercola (without attribution, a journalistic no-no).

>"Doubts raised over drugs for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost
>memory in some patients" by John Fauber, March 27, 2004 - Milwaukee Journal
>Sentinel JSOnline.

>The context:

>A local man who was overcome by Lipitor adverse effects.

>Informative interview with Dr. Golomb, including:

Nowhere does Fauber say his report was based on an interview, either by
him or by a different interviewer.  He simply begins quoting Golomb
without further introduction.  He almost certain owes that part of the
article to Mercola's article.

[...]

>As you will no doubt recall, this information is always followed by an
>hysterical need by some to somehow minimize that 20% number because of an
>overwhelming need for denial.

ISTM it's important to realize that the 20% and the 15% are not about
the same problem, even if the numbers were acceptable at face value.

>Considering that Dr. Golomb is the premier research authority on statins in
>the world, and also is independent of pharm co funding and has absolutely no
>reason to 'spin' anything, I take her at her word.  Given that 100% of the
>statin takers in my family have been drastically disabled for a number of
>years due to Lipitor, the number does not surprise me in the least, nor does
>it give me any reason to doubt it.

Some source to support your acclaim for her as "premier research
authority on statins in the world"?  I find that a little unlikely for
an Assistant Professor of Medicine and a Research Associate in
Psychology, both beginning in 1998.

>Sorry, I should have checked before posting - 20%  is the number that
>appears in the article.

But that is about a different kind and level of effects than the 15% you
have consistently used.

>If you have further questions about what may have been left out of the
>article I suggest you contact the reporter.

My questions are not about what the reporter wrote but about, first,
what he proves (rather little, IMO, given the lack of specific sourcing)
and, second, about your analysis and interpretation of the article.
Signature

Don
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.                                --Galileo Galilei

Sharon Hope - 14 Feb 2005 01:25 GMT
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
> <ouqdnV_IyKZbNpPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
>>http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

Yes, at http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

The article dated March 27, 2004 by John Fauber, "Doubts raised over drugs
for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost memory in some patients",
states
""If you believe the clinical trial data, the problems occur at very modest
rates," said Beatrice Golomb, an assistant professor of family medicine at
the University of California, San Diego, who is conducting two studies on
statin side effects.
Those trials generally report side effects in less than 1% to 2% of
patients. And many of those complications are minor and disappear if the
drug is discontinued or the dose lowered.

But, "there are clinicians whose personal experience is substantially
different than what is reported in the trials," Golomb said.

She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or more
of patients encounter some side effects."

> No, you have said (and Mercola says) the 15% you attribute to Golomb
> refers to cognitive disability; the 20%, equally poorly sourced (was
> Fauber quoting something Golomb wrote, was he reporting an interview,
> had he heard a lecture, was it really what she said?), says, as you
> quoted above, "encounter **some* side effects."

You have made unsubstantiated allegations against Fauber here, stating with
no support that his article is "poorly sourced" and allegeing he "heard a
lecture"?  First, I suggest you support your argument, second, I suggest you
take it up with Farber and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.  It makes no
sense that you are complaining about this to me.

> Fauber seems to be relying on Mercola almost totally in that section
> although, as I quoted, Mercola actually wrote that Golomb said, "15
> percent of statin patients develop some **cognitive** side effects." [My
> emphasis]  In that part of his article Fauber seems to be paraphrasing
> and quoting Mercola (without attribution, a journalistic no-no).

That would be a very neat trick, because Fauber's article is dated March 27,
2004, yet the Mercola article you are almost certain he based the quote upon
is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, July 21, 2004.

If Fauber got the information from Mercola, maybe he has some hot tips on
next week's stock market, too!  Please be certain you ask and share them
with us, when you take him to task about quoting without attribution from a
Mercola article that was not published until four months after Fauber's
article.

>>"Doubts raised over drugs for cholesterol - Side effects have included
>>lost
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> without further introduction.  He almost certain owes that part of the
> article to Mercola's article.

He also quotes without using the word "interview" the following:

- Jeff Bryden, local man paralyzed by Lipitor
-  Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen
-  Wendy Peltier, the associate professor of neurology at the Medical
College who diagnosed Bryden, said she and other specialists at the college
have seen between 30 and 50 patients with statin-related muscle problems in
the past few years.
- Duane Graveline, a retired doctor and astronaut, who suffered memory
problems: "the memory problem was so bad that he wrote a book about it:
"Lipitor, Thief of Memory,""
- Matthew Muldoon, an associate professor of medicine at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who said, "In memory tests and a test
involving a complex maze, the statin users did not perform as well as those
on the placebo. The difference was subtle but significant," and "We are
obligated to do more extensive research because we are asking millions of
people to take these drugs for the rest of their lives."
- Parks, of the FDA, who said "the agency is aware of reports of cognitive
problems among statin users and is monitoring the situation"  also about
Parks: "The FDA is looking into the status of Crestor and hopes to respond
within 180 days, said Mary Parks, a physician and deputy director of the
FDA's metabolic and endocrine drug products division."

NOTE to Don: Why haven't you questioned this?  Why is Mary Parks affirming
that the FDA is tracking statin cognitive problems from the "metabolic and
endocrine drug products division"?  Why isn't NINDS (National Institutes of
Health's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS))
involved?

> [...]
>
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> ISTM it's important to realize that the 20% and the 15% are not about
> the same problem, even if the numbers were acceptable at face value.

You have the quotes in context in this email (previously you had the quotes
in context at their respective URLs) - you can now make the determination
from the available information if they were the same problem or slightly
different problems.  Of course, things change quickly, and you are
attempting to make precise decisions about quotes in popular media that were
taken at different points in time, and you are making absolutely no mention
that the information available at the time to make the determination may be
different at different times.  But that is your choice.

Also, you are setting another acceptance criteria - "even if the numbers
were acceptable at face value"  - since you set the bar, you are the only
one who can determine if someone has cleared your bar - that is totally
within your control.  It is, also, within the control of each of us readers
to make that determination for ourselves, so you needn't feel compelled to
share your threshold for accepting at face value - we each have our own.
(and we would also be judging your criteria - at face value or not, as we
wish).

>>Considering that Dr. Golomb is the premier research authority on statins
>>in
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> an Assistant Professor of Medicine and a Research Associate in
> Psychology, both beginning in 1998.

You can find things to be likely or unlikely, again that is your personal
set of acceptance criteria.

The NIH values Dr. Golomb's research, and has awarded her the only
multi-year study of non-cardiac endpoints of statins that I am aware of.
The popular press unerringly seeks her out for any statin adverse effects
information.  In case you were unfamiliar with it, RAND, where she also does
research, is a think-tank that has impeccable credentials for world-class
research.

Her CV is available for anyone to review at:
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/faculty/golomb/

Note her current positions include:
a.. Assistant Professor of Medicine, U.C. San Diego April 1998-
Division of General Internal Medicine

a.. Staff Physician, San Diego VA Medical Center Aug 1, 1996 -
Division of General Internal Medicine

a.. Research Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology, USC: Oct 1998-
Social Science Research Institute
University of Southern California

a.. Health Consultant, RAND: Aug 1996 -

Get that?  She is holding all these jobs simultaneously.  I don't know about
you, but it makes me think about myself, "What have YOU done lately?"

>>Sorry, I should have checked before posting - 20%  is the number that
>>appears in the article.
>
> But that is about a different kind and level of effects than the 15% you
> have consistently used.

There are many references to statin adverse effects now, far more than the 2
that existed in print when my husband's disabling constellation of
conditions were first determined to from Lipitor, and that all statins had
such advese effects.

Yes, Mercola does mention at
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/statin_drugs.htm in his article "The
Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medication, Part I, By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig,
PhD" - This, by the way, can be reached from the TOC of his July 21, 2004
Issue #552  http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/index.htm
The article mentions the different statin drugs, how cholesterol is used in
the body, then:

MUSCLE PAIN AND WEAKNESS (from statin drugs).

excerpt: "The most common side effect is muscle pain and weakness, a
condition called rhabdomyolysis, most likely due to the depletion of Co-Q10,
a nutrient that supports muscle function. Dr. Beatrice Golomb of San Diego,
California is currently conducting a series of studies on statin side
effects. The industry insists that only 2-3 percent of patients get muscle
aches and cramps but in one study, Golomb found that 98 percent of patients
taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevachor (a lower-dose
statin) suffered from muscle problems.3"

Mercola at http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/24/statin_drugs.htm in his
article "The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medication, Part II, By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig,
PhD" it mentions:

NEUROPATHY (from statin drugs)

excerpt: "According to the research of Dr. Golomb, nerve problems are a
common side effect from statin use; patients who use statins for two or more
years are at a four to 14-fold increased risk of developing idiopathic
polyneuropathy compared to controls.11 She reports that in many cases,
patients told her they had complained to their doctors about neurological
problems, only to be assured that their symptoms could not be related to
cholesterol-lowering medications.
The damage is often irreversible. People who take large doses for a long
time may be left with permanent nerve damage, even after they stop taking
the drug."

Note it then mentions the too common problem of elderly hitting the gas
rather than the brake and causing damage or mayhem, and relates it to
peripheral neuropathy which makes it difficult for the person with
neuropathy to detect the feeling of the pedal beneath his or her foot.

HEART FAILURE (from statin drugs)

excerpt: "Cardiologist Peter Langsjoen studied 20 patients with completely
normal heart function. After six months on a low dose of 20 mg of Lipitor a
day, two-thirds of the patients had abnormalities in the heart's filling
phase, when the muscle fills with blood. According to Langsjoen, this
malfunction is due to Co-Q10 depletion.
Without Co-Q10, the cell's mitochondria are inhibited from producing energy,
leading to muscle pain and weakness. The heart is especially susceptible
because it uses so much energy.14

Co-Q10 depletion becomes more and more of a problem as the pharmaceutical
industry encourages doctors to lower cholesterol levels in their patients by
greater and greater amounts. Fifteen animal studies in six different animal
species have documented statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion leading to decreased
ATP production, increased injury from heart failure, skeletal muscle injury
and increased mortality. Of the nine controlled trials on statin-induced
Co-Q10 depletion in humans, eight showed significant Co-Q10 depletion
leading to decline in left ventricular function and biochemical
imbalances.15

Yet virtually all patients with heart failure are put on statin drugs, even
if their cholesterol is already low. Of interest is a recent study
indicating that patients with chronic heart failure benefit from having high
levels of cholesterol rather than low. Researchers in Hull, UK followed 114
heart failure patients for at least 12 months.16 Survival was 78 percent at
12 months and 56 percent at 36 months.

They found that for every point of decrease in serum cholesterol, there was
a 36 percent increase in the risk of death within three years. "

DIZZINESS  (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"According to Dr. Golumb, who notes that dizziness is a common adverse
effect, the elderly may be particularly sensitive to drops in blood
pressure.18"

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients develop some
cognitive side effects.22 "

CANCER (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"In every study with rodents to date, statins have caused cancer.25 Why have
we not seen such a dramatic correlation in human studies? Because cancer
takes a long time to develop and most of the statin trials do not go on
longer than two or three years. Still, in one trial, the CARE trial, breast
cancer rates of those taking a statin went up 1500 percent.26 "

PANCREATIC ROT (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"The medical literature contains several reports of pancreatitis in patients
taking statins. "

DEPRESSION (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"Numerous studies have linked low cholesterol with depression. One of the
most recent found that women with low cholesterol are twice as likely to
suffer from depression and anxiety. Researchers from Duke University Medical
Center carried out personality trait measurements on 121 young women aged 18
to 27.30 They found that 39 percent of the women with low cholesterol levels
scored high on personality traits that signaled proneness to depression,
compared to 19 percent of women with normal or high levels of cholesterol. "

The article for the rest of part II and part III goes on to identify how the
results of various drug trials fail to make the case for statins to be
prescribed so widely:

"Recently published studies do not provide any more justification for the
current campaign to put as many people as possible on statin drugs."

Mercola in the References, at
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/statin_drugs_ref.htm , provides the
reference from #22, Dr. Golomb's 15% quote in the COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
section, as:

"22. Email communication, Beatrice Golomb, July 10, 2003."

The Mercola article is a quote of the article entitled, "The Weston A. Price
Foundation, "The Dangers of Statin Drugs--What you Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines"  By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

This, too, addresses a full suite of statin adverse effects, and in one
category of such adverse effects it says:

"Cognitive Impairment
The November 2003 issue of Smart Money19 describes the case of Mike Hope,
owner of a successful ophthalmologic supply company: "There's an awkward
silence when you ask Mike Hope his age. He doesn't change the subject or
stammer, or make a silly joke about how he stopped counting at 21. He simply
doesn't remember. Ten seconds pass. Then 20. Finally an answer comes to him.
'I'm 56,' he says. Close, but not quite. 'I will be 56 this year.' Later, if
you happen to ask him about the book he's reading, you'll hit another
roadblock. He can't recall the title, the author or the plot." Statin use
since 1998 has caused his speech and memory to fade. He was forced to close
his business and went on Social Security 10 years early. Things improved
when he discontinued Lipitor in 2002, but he is far from complete
recovery-he still cannot sustain a conversation. What Lipitor did was turn
Mike Hope into an old man when he was in the prime of life.

Cases like Mike's have shown up in the medical literature as well. An
article in Pharmacotherapy, December 2003, for example, reports two cases of
cognitive impairment associated with Lipitor and Zocor.20 Both patients
suffered progressive cognitive decline that reversed completely within a
month after discontinuation of the statins. A study conducted at the
University of Pittsburgh showed that patients treated with statins for six
months compared poorly with patients on a placebo in solving complex mazes,
psychomotor skills and memory tests.21

Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients develop some
cognitive side effects.22 The most harrowing involve global transient
amnesia-complete memory loss for a brief or lengthy period-described by
former astronaut Duane Graveline in his book Lipitor: Thief of Memory.23
Sufferers report baffling incidents involving complete loss of
memory-arriving at a store and not remembering why they are there, unable to
remember their name or the names of their loved ones, unable to find their
way home in the car. These episodes occur suddenly and disappear just as
suddenly. Graveline points out that we are all at risk when the general
public is taking statins-do you want to be in an airplane when your pilot
develops statin-induced amnesia?

While the pharmaceutical industry denies that statins can cause amnesia,
memory loss has shown up in several statin trials. In a trial involving 2502
subjects, amnesia occurred in 7 receiving Lipitor; amnesia also occurred in
2 of 742 subjects during comparative trials with other statins. In addition,
"abnormal thinking" was reported in 4 of the 2502 clinical trial subjects.24
The total recorded side effects was therefore 0.5 percent; a figure that
likely under-represents the true frequency since memory loss was not
specifically studied in these trials. "

As with the Mercola site, the
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html  lists the footnote
#22 as "22. Email communication, Beatrice Golomb, July 10, 2003."  (And Dr.
Graveline's book can now be purchased at http://www.spacedoc.net, BTW)

>>If you have further questions about what may have been left out of the
>>article I suggest you contact the reporter.
>
> My questions are not about what the reporter wrote but about, first,
> what he proves (rather little, IMO, given the lack of specific sourcing)
> and, second, about your analysis and interpretation of the article.

Again, if you have arguments about what Fauber "proves" address them to
Fauber.

As to what my analysis and interpretation of the article might be, it will
most certainly not be the same as yours.  At the very least, our educational
backgrounds and experience with statin adverse effects differ greatly.

For you to expect that your interpretation and analysis must be the same as
mine is a bit sad.  You owe it to yourself to draw your own conclusions.
Believe me when I say that I make determinations, interpretations and
analysis without concern about "but what would Don think of this?"  I can
respect you for calling into question some things, and I can agree that
every article I read about statin side effects is far too superficial to
help the millions who may be suffering harm right now, and I can share your
frustration that the studies are not sufficiently illuminating about the
side-effects, but my conclusions will often vary from yours - almost
certainly.

I think that is a healthy situation, and hope you do, too!

Now, an assignment for someone: Grab all the percentages mentioned in all
the quotes and make up some sort of table: Adverse effect, reported %age,
reporter (i.e., quoted expert), date of report.  That might be a useful and
illuminating exercise, but one for which I don't have the time this evening.

Then, please share it with us.  If it is useful, I may add it to the Statin
Adverse Effects FAQ!
Don Kirkman - 14 Feb 2005 22:50 GMT
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<V_CdnazlqdORY5LfRVn-sg@comcast.com>:

>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
>> <ouqdnV_IyKZbNpPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>:

>>>Sorry, I understated from memory  - It was from an article I read in March
>>>of 2004, and the number was actually TWENTY PERCENT.

>> Well, you actually have used the 15% more than once over the past year
>> or so.

>>>The quote:

>>>"She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or
>>>more of patients encounter some side effects."

>Yes, at http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

>The article dated March 27, 2004 by John Fauber, "Doubts raised over drugs
>for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost memory in some patients",
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
>patients. And many of those complications are minor and disappear if the
>drug is discontinued or the dose lowered.

>But, "there are clinicians whose personal experience is substantially
>different than what is reported in the trials," Golomb said.

>She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or more
>of patients encounter some side effects."

Exactly what I pointed out; the 15% refers specifically to **cognitive**
problems; two different things.

>> No, you have said (and Mercola says) the 15% you attribute to Golomb
>> refers to cognitive disability; the 20%, equally poorly sourced (was
>> Fauber quoting something Golomb wrote, was he reporting an interview,
>> had he heard a lecture, was it really what she said?), says, as you
>> quoted above, "encounter **some* side effects."

>You have made unsubstantiated allegations against Fauber here, stating with
>no support that his article is "poorly sourced" and allegeing he "heard a
>lecture"?  First, I suggest you support your argument, second, I suggest you
>take it up with Farber and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.  It makes no
>sense that you are complaining about this to me.

I made no allegations, I pointed out that he gave no sources--that is,
it's "poorly sourced."  Nor did I allege that he "heard a lecture"; you
need to distinguish between a question, which I asked, and an
allegation.

>> Fauber seems to be relying on Mercola almost totally in that section
>> although, as I quoted, Mercola actually wrote that Golomb said, "15
>> percent of statin patients develop some **cognitive** side effects." [My
>> emphasis]  In that part of his article Fauber seems to be paraphrasing
>> and quoting Mercola (without attribution, a journalistic no-no).

>That would be a very neat trick, because Fauber's article is dated March 27,
>2004, yet the Mercola article you are almost certain he based the quote upon
>is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, July 21, 2004.

The mystery is easily solved; Mercola is an exact re-publication of an
article by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD from the Weston A. Price
Foundation in the Spring of 2004 (no exact date given); the article was
posted to the Web in April.  So both Mercola (literally quoting) and
Fauber (paraphrasing, primarily) seem to rest on the same original
source.  This is indicated on Mercola's site, in a link which we both
apparently missed.

[...]

>>>Informative interview with Dr. Golomb, including:

>> Nowhere does Fauber say his report was based on an interview, either by
>> him or by a different interviewer.  He simply begins quoting Golomb
>> without further introduction.  He almost certain owes that part of the
>> article to Mercola's article.

>He also quotes without using the word "interview" the following:

My point is that he never indicated the source or the nature of the
source.  I said that quite plainly and there should be no confusion.

>NOTE to Don: Why haven't you questioned this?  Why is Mary Parks affirming
>that the FDA is tracking statin cognitive problems from the "metabolic and
>endocrine drug products division"?  Why isn't NINDS (National Institutes of
>Health's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS))
>involved?

Primarily because this particular discussion has been about your source
for the 15% figure you continue to use.  I'm still hoping someone will
find a better source than a personal email referred to by a third party.

>You have the quotes in context in this email (previously you had the quotes

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I haven't sent you or anyone else an email on this subject.

>in context at their respective URLs) - you can now make the determination
>from the available information if they were the same problem or slightly
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>that the information available at the time to make the determination may be
>different at different times.  But that is your choice.

I am purely trying to establish what was actually said and written;
there is a substantive and substantial difference between "[s]ide
effects [that] included lost memory", "some side effects," "some
cognitive side effects", and "cognitive damage," all terms that have
been used in this thread and in the articles.

>Also, you are setting another acceptance criteria - "even if the numbers
>were acceptable at face value"  - since you set the bar, you are the only
>one who can determine if someone has cleared your bar - that is totally
>within your control.

My point exactly.

>>>Considering that Dr. Golomb is the premier research authority on statins
>>>in
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
>>>does
>>>it give me any reason to doubt it.

>> Some source to support your acclaim for her as "premier research
>> authority on statins in the world"?  I find that a little unlikely for
>> an Assistant Professor of Medicine and a Research Associate in
>> Psychology, both beginning in 1998.

>You can find things to be likely or unlikely, again that is your personal
>set of acceptance criteria.

>The NIH values Dr. Golomb's research, and has awarded her the only
>multi-year study of non-cardiac endpoints of statins that I am aware of.
>The popular press unerringly seeks her out for any statin adverse effects
>information.  In case you were unfamiliar with it, RAND, where she also does
>research, is a think-tank that has impeccable credentials for world-class
>research.

I know what RAND is, since I applied there when I was about to leave
graduate school; I'm not convinced that it has "impeccable" credentials
but over the years it has been very good in most areas.  Do they do
medical research?  What I've familiar with has been on social issues
like crime or on defense and security issues.

RAND was founded by the military, and has always been heavily involved
in defense and security issues; later they added domestic issues to
their work.  Their research in the area of health seems to be directed
toward public health matters such as [street or illegal] drug policy.

"Areas of Research: Child policy, civil and criminal justice, education,
environment and energy, health, international policy, labor markets,
national security, population and regional studies, science and
technology, social welfare and transportation, biological, agricultural
and physical sciences, communications and information, economic issues,
foreign relations, labor and human resource development, regional
studies, social issues."
http://www.nira.go.jp/ice/nwdtt/dat/1306.html

Her CV lists her as "Health Consultant, RAND: Aug 1996 -".

>Her CV is available for anyone to review at:
>http://medicine.ucsd.edu/faculty/golomb/

Her CV has never been an issue, so you can stop repeating that.

>Note her current positions include:
>a.. Assistant Professor of Medicine, U.C. San Diego April 1998-
>Division of General Internal Medicine

>a.. Staff Physician, San Diego VA Medical Center Aug 1, 1996 -
>Division of General Internal Medicine

>a.. Research Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology, USC: Oct 1998-
>Social Science Research Institute
>University of Southern California

>a.. Health Consultant, RAND: Aug 1996 -

Note that earlier I had quoted two of those, above.

>Get that?  She is holding all these jobs simultaneously.  I don't know about
>you, but it makes me think about myself, "What have YOU done lately?"

So just how much time does she spend at each, considering that two are
in San Diego, one in midtown LA, and one in Santa Monica?

You didn't answer the actual question:  where is evidence that she is
the "premier research authority on statins in the world"?
Signature

Don
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.                                --Galileo Galilei

Sharon Hope - 15 Feb 2005 04:50 GMT
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
> <V_CdnazlqdORY5LfRVn-sg@comcast.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
> need to distinguish between a question, which I asked, and an
> allegation.

I distinguished between published sources on adverse effects associated with
statins at 20% (apparently assorted adverse effects) and 15% (apparently
cognitive effects).

Both were published.

The major impact of these numbers ought to be the vast difference between
these reports and what, for example, Pfizer admits to for Lipitor, which is
~ 2%.

When dealing with the largest population of patients of any drug on the
market, the differences are stunning.  These are massive numbers of people
affected.

>>> Fauber seems to be relying on Mercola almost totally in that section
>>> although, as I quoted, Mercola actually wrote that Golomb said, "15
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
>
> [...]

Or, Fauber quoted a direct source on a different day, who had access to
different information on that day.

Dr. Golomb is widely quoted in many, many articles.  In the case of the
Smart Money Magazine article, I know for a fact that the author traveled to
San Diego in person to interview Dr. Golomb at the end of a very very long
day, and then she traveled to the LA area to interview us, in person.  We
went to dinner together and then to the classic car "cruise" together.

I also know for a fact that the LA Times article that featured my husband's
case was based on several telephone interviews.  The author did not use
material from other sources specific to our case.

These things I know first-hand.  I do not know where Fauber got his quote
from, but it is not impossible that he contacted Dr. Golomb directly.  As
you know, his email address accompanies the article.  If it is important to
you, you really should contact him and ask the question.  And, while you are
at it, you can ask him about all the other people he quoted in his article
and the precise circumstances of the data collection.

>>>>Informative interview with Dr. Golomb, including:
>
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> My point is that he never indicated the source or the nature of the
> source.  I said that quite plainly and there should be no confusion.

Write to him and ask.  I am certain he will be complimented that you read
his article and are interested, unless you couch it in the accusative 'no
no' terms.

>>NOTE to Don: Why haven't you questioned this?  Why is Mary Parks affirming
>>that the FDA is tracking statin cognitive problems from the "metabolic and
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> for the 15% figure you continue to use.  I'm still hoping someone will
> find a better source than a personal email referred to by a third party.

That is not my source, that is also a quote from the same articles that
quoted the number.

Again, if you don't like the references a particular author uses, contact
that author.  It is a total waste of everyone's time to ask someone who
merely read the article and found it interesting to 'defend' the source of
the data.  ASK THE AUTHOR.

>>You have the quotes in context in this email (previously you had the
>>quotes
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I haven't sent you or anyone else an email on this subject.

Arghhhh, you were discussing the source reference in the article, which is
an email.  No one said you had been cc'd on the email.  No one said I had
been cc'd on the email.  No one said you sent the email.

The fact that the source was an email appears in the reference list in the
article.  ASK THE AUTHOR.

>>in context at their respective URLs) - you can now make the determination
>>from the available information if they were the same problem or slightly
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> cognitive side effects", and "cognitive damage," all terms that have
> been used in this thread and in the articles.

The articles make no mention of sci.med.cardiology.  If you are discussing
the information in the articles, it is best not to blur it with a ng
discussion.  The article quotes people whose credentials are at least
sketched within the article.  ng opinions are frequently offered without
specific verified credentials, and often under pseudonyms or email 'handles'
vs names and credentials and work experience/responsibility context.

>>Also, you are setting another acceptance criteria - "even if the numbers
>>were acceptable at face value"  - since you set the bar, you are the only
[quoted text clipped - 37 lines]
> medical research?  What I've familiar with has been on social issues
> like crime or on defense and security issues.

Dr. Golomb does research for them.  Not only listed in her cv - Google her
rand work.  It is available.  In fact, you can purchase some of the work on
Amazon.com.

> RAND was founded by the military, and has always been heavily involved
> in defense and security issues; later they added domestic issues to
> their work.  Their research in the area of health seems to be directed
> toward public health matters such as [street or illegal] drug policy.

Dr. Golomb is an expert on Gulf War Syndrome.  You can google her works in
this area.

> "Areas of Research: Child policy, civil and criminal justice, education,
> environment and energy, health, international policy, labor markets,
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Her CV has never been an issue, so you can stop repeating that.

YOU made it an issue when you said
"
>>> Some source to support your acclaim for her as "premier research
>>> authority on statins in the world"?  I find that a little unlikely for
>>> an Assistant Professor of Medicine and a Research Associate in
>>> Psychology, both beginning in 1998.
"

If it weren't an issue, why did you bring it up?

>>Note her current positions include:
>>a.. Assistant Professor of Medicine, U.C. San Diego April 1998-
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> So just how much time does she spend at each, considering that two are
> in San Diego, one in midtown LA, and one in Santa Monica?

Wow, you must think I am all-powerful.  Do you have some reason to believe
that I review her timecards?  I work full time (and overtime) at a demanding
job and spend hours trying to get treatment for my husband, and trying to
get the word out to others so they might be warned ahead of time not to
ignore the onset of these disabling adverse effects.

Dr. Golomb works long hours, too.  I have some personal data points from
correspondence.  As for monitoring the number of minutes she spends per day
on any particular task, it is absurd for you to even broach the subject.

> You didn't answer the actual question:  where is evidence that she is
> the "premier research authority on statins in the world"?

Sorry that the obvious obviously has escaped you.  There is nothing that
would meet your acceptance criteria, I will leave it that it is my own
conclusion, drawn from many many referrals to her.  For example, when I
contacted NINDS about the need for cross-institute research in statins due
to the cognitive and neurotoxic effects, the NINDS folks said that the
person who is the principal point of contact for all research into
non-cardiac endpoints of statins is Dr. Golomb.  4 other of the NIH
institutes said the same thing.  So have many, many others I have contacted
in my quest to find a treatment to recovery for my husband, including
representatives (who were involved in authoring the joint advisories) from
AHA, ACC, and NHLBI, as well as the FDA and some other researchers.

That won't meet your criteria, by definition, but that is part of the basis
of my conclusion.
Hawki63@sbcglobal.net - 15 Feb 2005 21:42 GMT
for what it is worth...

most ALL doctors that I have worked with/for are "assistant or associate
professors" at one UC or another..

it does NOT mean that they are currently and consistently in the
classroom...

it means that they have "privileges" to lecture at the university...perhaps
a one day or weekend seminar..etc...perhaps once a semester..once a
year..and  yes maybe every semester...

obviously this gal does NOT commute back and forth from San Diego to UCLA on
a regular basis...more likely she gave a seminar at UCLA......

again...most doctors worth their salt will attain "assistant professor"
designations to beef up their CVs...

send a class schedule that documents that she teaches EACH semester...EACH
week.....etc etc....

bet you cannot..

actually...in order for her to be concurrently active in all the areas of
her CV....her days would need to be 48 hours long..and  14 in a week....

>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
>> <V_CdnazlqdORY5LfRVn-sg@comcast.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 325 lines]
> That won't meet your criteria, by definition, but that is part of the
> basis of my conclusion.
Sharon Hope - 16 Feb 2005 03:18 GMT
> for what it is worth...
>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> it does NOT mean that they are currently and consistently in the
> classroom...

a reasonable interpretation of the cv

> it means that they have "privileges" to lecture at the
> university...perhaps a one day or weekend seminar..etc...perhaps once a
[quoted text clipped - 354 lines]
>> That won't meet your criteria, by definition, but that is part of the
>> basis of my conclusion.
Don Kirkman - 16 Feb 2005 23:46 GMT
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<a9CdnVGfu_zrJo_fRVn-qg@comcast.com>:

>> for what it is worth...

>> most ALL doctors that I have worked with/for are "assistant or associate
>> professors" at one UC or another..

>> it does NOT mean that they are currently and consistently in the
>> classroom...

>a reasonable interpretation of the cv

Of course it is, so maybe now you'll quit trying to use it to qualify
her as an expert.
Signature

Don
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.                                --Galileo Galilei

Sharon Hope - 18 Feb 2005 04:21 GMT
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
> <a9CdnVGfu_zrJo_fRVn-qg@comcast.com>:
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
> Of course it is, so maybe now you'll quit trying to use it to qualify
> her as an expert.

She doesn't need me or you to qualify her as an expert.
listener - 18 Feb 2005 13:20 GMT
>>>> for what it is worth...
>>
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
>
> She doesn't need me or you to qualify her as an expert.

My, aren't we testy.....

I suppose once the results of the USCD Study are published and don't fully
support your view Dr. Golumbs "expert" status will lose its luster with
you. (Although, I suspect you'll cherry-pick the "bad" bits and totally
ignore the "good" bits, as is your pattern.)

L.
Sharon Hope - 19 Feb 2005 05:24 GMT
>>>>> for what it is worth...
>>>
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> you. (Although, I suspect you'll cherry-pick the "bad" bits and totally
> ignore the "good" bits, as is your pattern.)

If it weren't for Dr. Golomb, my husband would not have survived the Lipitor
damage that he developed over the 4 years at 10 mg. per day, the damage was
so profound and accelerating in severity.

As it was, his mitochondria/muscles were so badly damaged that his CK level
continued to rise for nearly a full year off the drug, on near total
bedrest.  (defined as walking no more than about 50 feet per day)

She could have retired after that day and still, in my estimation, be the
best, wisest, and most effective physician on earth.

Prejudiced view?  You betcha!

> L.
Don Kirkman - 15 Feb 2005 23:32 GMT
It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<OaOdnfPt8dAO4ozfRVn-1w@comcast.com>:

>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
>> <V_CdnazlqdORY5LfRVn-sg@comcast.com>:

>>>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
>>>> <ouqdnV_IyKZbNpPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>:

>>>>>Sorry, I understated from memory  - It was from an article I read in
>>>>>March
>>>>>of 2004, and the number was actually TWENTY PERCENT.

>>>> Well, you actually have used the 15% more than once over the past year
>>>> or so.

>>>>>The quote:

>>>>>"She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or
>>>>>more of patients encounter some side effects."

[. . .

>> Exactly what I pointed out; the 15% refers specifically to **cognitive**
>> problems; two different things.

[. . .]

>I distinguished between published sources on adverse effects associated with
>statins at 20% (apparently assorted adverse effects) and 15% (apparently
>cognitive effects).

>Both were published.

Yes, both were published, but you started this subthread by trying to
substitute the 20% for the 15% even though they refer to **different**
descriptions of the effects.  You cannot substitute one for the other.

>The major impact of these numbers ought to be the vast difference between
>these reports and what, for example, Pfizer admits to for Lipitor, which is
>~ 2%.

We can't know the impact unless we can learn to use numbers accurately
in discussing publicly available sources.

>>>That would be a very neat trick, because Fauber's article is dated March
>>>27,
>>>2004, yet the Mercola article you are almost certain he based the quote
>>>upon
>>>is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, July 21, 2004.

>> The mystery is easily solved; Mercola is an exact re-publication of an
>> article by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD from the Weston A. Price
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>> source.  This is indicated on Mercola's site, in a link which we both
>> apparently missed.

>Or, Fauber quoted a direct source on a different day, who had access to
>different information on that day.

I've had too much experience with textual analysis to be conclude that
the two of them used independent sources.  

>Dr. Golomb is widely quoted in many, many articles.  In the case of the
>Smart Money Magazine article, I know for a fact that the author traveled to
>San Diego in person to interview Dr. Golomb at the end of a very very long
>day, and then she traveled to the LA area to interview us, in person.  We
>went to dinner together and then to the classic car "cruise" together.

The issue is not whether she's been quoted or interviewed, but is **what
is the source and meaning of the 15% that is attributed to her.**  I
still await a satisfactory explanation of that.

Who had the long day, Golomb or the author?  And how is that relevant to
any 15% figure?  Did that article include the 15% and if so did Golomb
give it to the author in an interview, or did the author find it
elsewhere as I, Mercola, and Fauber did?

>I also know for a fact that the LA Times article that featured my husband's
>case was based on several telephone interviews.  The author did not use
>material from other sources specific to our case.

Your case is not part of this discussion, which is purely about the
weight of the evidence, when it becomes available, of the percentage
figures.

>These things I know first-hand.  I do not know where Fauber got his quote
>from, but it is not impossible that he contacted Dr. Golomb directly.  As
>you know, his email address accompanies the article.  If it is important to
>you, you really should contact him and ask the question.  And, while you are
>at it, you can ask him about all the other people he quoted in his article
>and the precise circumstances of the data collection.

I'll repeat:  my argument is not with Golomb, Mercola, Fallon, Fauber,
or anyone else; it is with you over your (mis)use of the numbers.

[. . .]

>>>You have the quotes in context in this email (previously you had the
>>>quotes

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>> I haven't sent you or anyone else an email on this subject.

>Arghhhh, you were discussing the source reference in the article, which is
>an email.  No one said you had been cc'd on the email.  No one said I had
>been cc'd on the email.  No one said you sent the email.

I couldn't have discussed that particular email because the text of it
is not there.  There is simply a note that a Golomb email was the source
of the 15%, nothing more.

[Major snippage of matters not germane to the numbers]

>> You didn't answer the actual question:  where is evidence that she is
>> the "premier research authority on statins in the world"?

>Sorry that the obvious obviously has escaped you.  There is nothing that
>would meet your acceptance criteria, I will leave it that it is my own
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>representatives (who were involved in authoring the joint advisories) from
>AHA, ACC, and NHLBI, as well as the FDA and some other researchers.

Ah, so there may well be more expert statin researchers among, for
instance, the cardiological community where statins are routine
medication?  I would guess that normally the "premier research authority
. . . in the world" on any subject will have been noticed by prize
committees, professional organizations, academic colleagues, and the
like.
Signature

Don
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed
us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their
use.                                --Galileo Galilei

Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 12 Feb 2005 18:20 GMT
>>Another misleading subject line.....

The article makes it clear that there are conflicting studies: some
show
no protection against dementia, others do. Obviously, much more
research
is needed.

Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins
against
this most debilitating disease, alzheimers? <<

COMMENT:

While we're visiting this subject, let us note that Alzheimer's is
responsible for maybe half of dementia only. A large fraction of the
other half is caused by mini-strokes and vascular disease. And of
course, there's a 20 to 30% overlap of people who have both problems.

Of these, Alzheirmer's is the process I would LEAST expect statins to
interfere with. They might, but they might not.  However, statins have
already show impressive anti-stroke capability, even in people with
normal cholesterol levels. So if statins do not work in slowing or
preventing progression of Alzheimer's, this in no way means we've ruled
out their role in preventing "dementia."

SBH
Jim Chinnis - 12 Feb 2005 18:36 GMT
"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" <sbharris@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
part:

>While we're visiting this subject, let us note that Alzheimer's is
>responsible for maybe half of dementia only. A large fraction of the
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
>
>SBH

This particular study was too underpowered to detect any effect of
statins in either Alzheimer or other dementia incidence. The fact
that they went on for pages of sub-group analyses and post-hoc
comparisons is pretty silly.

It's one thing to report a null result in a properly powered
study, but quite another to report it when you didn't collect
enough data to find anything *but* a null result.
--
Jim Chinnis   Warrenton, Virginia, USA
Zee - 12 Feb 2005 19:02 GMT
> >>Another misleading subject line.....
>
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
> SBH

What happens to those of us who took them for years is quite different
from what happens in clincial trials. Frankie's husband for example
would have been deemed a raging success 6 months out, two years out;
and he is not alone. We hear from hundreds; we get corroboration from
their physicians and the pattern is the same. Over and over and over.
No; anecdote is not as good as fact. But it certainly raises question
in any reasonable person.

statins, stroke and cognition:
http://www.geriatrictimes.com/g040618.html

Second, the large trials enrolled people at high risk for
cardiovascular disease who experience benefit from statins to nonfatal
stroke, which may lead to improvements in cognition that may help to
balance out harms to cognition from other mechanisms. Although there
are trends toward increases in fatal stroke with statins in most of the
large statin trials, those who have died cannot complete cognitive
surveys. The impact on total number of strokes was unaffected in the
PROSPER trial with its sole focus on the elderly population. In the
PROSPER trial, the number of reduced transient ischemic attacks and
nonfatal strokes was actually matched by a similar number of increased
fatal strokes.

Finally, the HPS used what is termed an "active run-in." For six weeks,
participants considered for enrollment were placed on simvastatin, and
those who were not fully compliant were dropped from the study.
Participants who perceived problems on the drug, including cognitive
problems, may have dropped the study themselves or skipped pills
intentionally. In addition, participants who developed memory problems
may have had trouble remembering to take the pills even if they did not
recognize deterioration in cognitive function. This run-in process may
have excluded participants who developed cognitive problems on the
drug, selecting only those who did not experience problems. Over
one-third of those who were interested in enrolling were excluded
following this compliance run-in.

Because statins reduce nonfatal stroke (and cognition is obviously not
measured in people who have experienced fatal stroke), benefits by
statins for cognitive function in those in whom a stroke was averted
might be expected. It must be emphasized that the randomized trial
evidence has, to date, uniformly failed to show cognitive benefits by
statins and has supported no effect or frank and significant harm to
cognitive function.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frisoni GB, Fratiglioni L, Fastbom J et al. (1999), Mortality in
nondemented subjects with cognitive impairment: the influence of
health-related factors. Am J Epidemiol 150(10):1031-1044.

Golomb BA, Kane T, Dimsdale JA (2004), Severe irritability associated
with statin cholesterol-lowering drugs. QJM 97(4):229-235.

Golomb BA, Yang E, Denenberg J, Criqui M (2003), Statin-associated
adverse events. P95. Presented at the 43rd Annual Conference on
Cardiovascu

King DS, Jones DW, Wofford MR et al. (2001), Cognitive impairment
associated with atorvastatin. Presented at the American College of
Clinical Pharmacy Spring Practice and Research Forum. Salt Lake City;
April 22-25.

King DS, Wilburn AJ, Wofford MR et al. (2003), Cognitive impairment
associated with atorvastatin and simvastatin. Pharmacotherapy
23(12):1663-1667.

Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jiao Z et al. (1999), Health, cognitive, and
psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community
sample. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):83-88.
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 12 Feb 2005 22:21 GMT
>>Second, the large trials enrolled people at high risk for
cardiovascular disease who experience benefit from statins to nonfatal
stroke, which may lead to improvements in cognition that may help to
balance out harms to cognition from other mechanisms. Although there
are trends toward increases in fatal stroke with statins in most of the

large statin trials, those who have died cannot complete cognitive
surveys.<<

COMMENT:

Sorry, but this is a bogus argument, unless you name the studies. In
the one study you DO discuss (PROSPER), there was NO possiblity that a
difference between recognized nonfatal stroke or stroke influenced the
cognitive outcome, because recognized stroke of any kind brought the
treatment and trial to a halt for the individual patient, so no
cognitive tests were done after that. All cognitive tests reported are
prior to ANY stroke endpoint. They show no difference between treatment
and placebo groups across more than 3 years of on-treatment testing
done every 3 months, including the last set of tests before treatment
end. This is NOT consistant with any negative (or positive) cognitive
effect in this population. There was no difference between groups on
the last on-treatment cognitive test (comparing groups) or the
second-to-baseline test. Both groups decline from baseline to end, but
they decline in cognitive function at the same rate.

>>Although there are trends toward increases in fatal stroke with
statins in most of the large statin trials, those who have died cannot
complete cognitive surveys.<<

COMMENT

NO. It's no use trying to make anything of a trend unless it's a trend
in large numbers of people. The other reason this argument won't run
even if testing had been done after stroke, is that when you're talking
about fatal stroke, you're talking about tiny numbers.  PROSPER (for
example) is a study of 5800 people, and there were 14 (placebo) vs 22
(Pravachol) fatal strokes. Those extra 8 fatal strokes are not
significant (p = .19) and in any case, cognitive testing NOT done on 6
dead people is certainly not going to influence any mean difference in
cognitive testing in 5800  people, even if they WERE doing testing in
non-fatal stroke patients (which they weren't), and the 8 dead stroke
patients all came from this group. Come on. Bad inferential crap like
this is why the net is called the net of a million lies. You can
sometimes get away with this stuff if nobody wants to do the work to
look the studies up, but sometimes you run afoul of people like me, who
will. So stop it.

>>The impact on total number of strokes was unaffected in the PROSPER
trial with its sole focus on the elderly population. <<

True enough. It may well be that pravachol and other statins have
significant anti-stroke effect only in other well-selected groups. None
was seen in this trial, though effect on TIAs barely missed
significance (p = 0.051 = 94.9% chance that pravachol really did
decrease TIAs in the trial).

>>In the PROSPER trial, the number of reduced transient ischemic
attacks and nonfatal strokes was actually matched by a similar number
of increased fatal strokes.<<

COMMENT:

Baloney-- that's quite wrong. The number of reduced transient ischemic
attacks was 77 (drug) vs 102 (placebo), a difference of 25, which blows
away differences in the stroke numbers (the totals for stroke plus TIA
in this study I note have been mis-done in the table, for they do not
add up to the stated drg/placebo 204/212, difference of 8, but are
actually 212/233, difference of 21). As for total strokes they were 135
(drug) vs 131 (difference of 4 in favor of placebo), which splits up
into non-fatal 116 (drug) v 119 (difference of 3 in favor of drug) and
fatal 22 (drug) vs 14 (difference of 8 in favor of placebo). These
number don't quite add up, either (there's one missing person), but
it's clear that the differences in fatal stroke numbers are too small
to decide that they simply came out of one group and went to the other.
Certainly they did NOT come out of the TIA group, for the difference of
25 there is reduced merely to 21 if you add in the total stroke
numbers. None of the stroke differences are significant, so nothing can
be said about this, either way.

>>Finally, the HPS used what is termed an "active run-in." For six weeks,
participants considered for enrollment were placed on simvastatin, and
those who were not fully compliant were dropped from the study.
Participants who perceived problems on the drug, including cognitive
problems, may have dropped the study themselves or skipped pills
intentionally. In addition, participants who developed memory problems
may have had trouble remembering to take the pills even if they did not

recognize deterioration in cognitive function. This run-in process may
have excluded participants who developed cognitive problems on the
drug, selecting only those who did not experience problems. Over
one-third of those who were interested in enrolling were excluded
following this compliance run-in.<<

COMMENT:  This is an interesting hypothesis, that all the people would
had cognitive problems with statins were selected out in the first 6
weeks, and went out with the 1252 people given statin who didn't meet
inclusion criteria or who refused to participate. But anybody who
advances this argument for PROSPER had better accept the concomitant
conclusion, which is that if you *don't* have problems with statins in
6 weeks, THEN you won't have any for at least 3 years. Which is what
was then seen in the radomized 5804 people who went on to the next arm
of the trial. You can't just hypothesize parts of explanations you
like, but ignore the obligatory parts of the same hypotheses you don't.

>>Because statins reduce nonfatal stroke (and cognition is obviously not
measured in people who have experienced fatal stroke), benefits by
statins for cognitive function in those in whom a stroke was averted
might be expected.<<

COMMENT:
Nonsense, for reasons carefully explained above. The PROSPER trial
measured cognition before stroke, and also the number differences
between non-fatal and fatal stroke are non-significant.  In any case,
some hypothetical raising of mean cognitive scores by killing stroke
victims is far too small to affect scoring of cognitive function in
populations of patients 360 times larger than the number of excess
stroke deaths.

SBH
Zee - 12 Feb 2005 22:45 GMT
> >>Second, the large trials enrolled people at high risk for
> cardiovascular disease who experience benefit from statins to nonfatal
[quoted text clipped - 118 lines]
>
> SBH

Shouldn't be too long a drive for someone so unequivocal about his
argument:

Adverse Drug Effects: The Case of Statins
http://ethics.ucsd.edu/seminars/2005/february.htm
George - 13 Feb 2005 01:53 GMT
Thank you Dr. Harris for speaking to the group with proven science and
expert analysis.  I fear many lay people come here not knowing much
about the subject and leave with a distorted view of statin therapy.

Since it would take a lifetime to refute Zee and others with their
mesianic banter about the evil associated with this class of
medications it is appreciated that you take the time to do so once in
a while.

I say a lifetime because this "cause" has obviously become their main
mission in life.
Sharon Hope - 13 Feb 2005 02:14 GMT
> mesianic banter about the evil associated with this class of
> medications

These comments are about medically determined disabling damage to humans
that prevents them from pursuing a livelihood or even a simple quality of
life.

My pity to you, if you consider a group of people searching for a treatment
toward recovery from a preventable condition of disability to be 'banter'.
Zee - 13 Feb 2005 02:19 GMT
> Thank you Dr. Harris for speaking to the group with proven science and
> expert analysis.

No one like to see Steve post more than I do. Who cares if he is right
or wrong. He's so good at it we line up to watch him do it.

I fear many lay people come here not knowing much
> about the subject and leave with a distorted view of statin therapy.

You fear....????? BwahahabahaaHA. Well if they want to read a statin
education in progress they can google your posts: from avid Crestor
defender (my cardiologist who works at the Ontario Heart and Stroke
Brothel) to sober re-think wiht a new cardiologist and a different
statin.

How they fall from grace. Watch it Steve. You could end up George's
yesterday's man.

> Since it would take a lifetime to refute Zee and others with their
> mesianic banter about the evil associated with this class of
> medications it is appreciated that you take the time to do so once in
> a while.

Steve was not refuting ME George. Steve was refuting BEA as he so
jockularly calls Dr. Beatrice Golomb, she of the 27 page cv. Hmmm.
Could Steve be envious?  Nahh. Our boy got big cohones: Steve's balls
clank when he crosses a (news)room. What could it bea?

> I say a lifetime because this "cause" has obviously become their main
> mission in life.

Well we cannot say we saved you. Because in spite of the education you
have received at my and Michael Hope's expense, you still waited for
your doc to change your statin to something safer.

Zee
Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com - 13 Feb 2005 03:25 GMT
>>Steve was not refuting ME George. Steve was refuting BEA as he so
jockularly calls Dr. Beatrice Golomb, she of the 27 page cv. Hmmm.
Could Steve be envious?  Nahh. Our boy got big cohones: Steve's balls
clank when he crosses a (news)room. What could it bea? <<

COMMENT:

I don't remember calling the lady "Bea." Did I really? Oh Bea-have.

My CV surely isn't 27 pages long. On the other hand, I don't have to
publish or perish, so I don't have to generated a crappy paper every
few months, in order to pad it.

I'll tell you a secret about scientific CVs. There's a big difference
between somebody who's never published in a referreed journal and
somebody who has. But not that much difference between somebody with a
dozen papers and somebody with a hundred. Fred Sanger had a one page
CV, but one paper on protein sequencing won him the Nobel prize in
1958, and another on gene sequencing won him a share of another Nobel
in 1980.  Quality matters. If you're not trying to be promoted (which
Sanger wasn't), you can get some bench work done. That's a luxury fewer
and fewer people have these days.

If Dr. Golomb is a good scientist, she won't be making numerical claims
in the popular press that she hasn't published. Without seeing such a
publication, I haven't a clue as to what she means by a 20% side effect
rate. What is she counting as a side effect?  A day of diarrhea? A
stuffy nose?  What?  Until we know, it's impossible to evaluate this
stuff, so why discuss it?

The PROSPECT study contains 8,700 patient-years of pravachol use,
compared double blind with mental status testing and ability to carry
out activities of daily living, with another 8,700 patient-years of
placebo. That's so much more experience than any given clinician ever
sees in a lifetime of prescribing any drug, that it's ridiculous. And
it's all blinded, which is a luxury no clinician gets. And they saw
nothing. And they published it.  And if you don't like that, there are
20,000 patients in the HPS study, where this time they did have the
power to see stroke reduction, and did see it. But no difference in
cognitive decline, either. But no increase, either.   I lay Dr.
Golomb's anecdotes along side stuff like this, and what am I supposed
to think?

If personal experience means anything, I've been prescribing statins
for a decade and half myself, and I've taken them for years. But I know
personal experience doesn't mean much. That's possibly the difference
between Dr. Golomb and myself.

SBH
Zee - 13 Feb 2005 03:41 GMT
Here is her CV. Not all about publish or perish.
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/faculty/golomb/

No. Personal experience here means nothing. Not mine, not Michael
Hope's. Why should yours be any different.

And those two studies: Prospect and HPS; are they not the studies James
Wright refers to when he says he is STILL waiting for the negative
results he requested from the study authors. ALL the negative results.
Nada.

http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter49.htm
Because large numbers of problematic patients were excluded, the HPS
results cannot be used to predict the safety and tolerance of
simvastatin in the general population. "

I want you to GO to that seminar. And engage "Bea" (uhuh) in
discussion, or in heckle; and report back to us.

Zee

Zee
Zee - 13 Feb 2005 04:31 GMT
Before I sign off for the night I just wanted to say: you do not have
to prove to me you are abso-f'ing-loot-ly brilliant.

And that was a very lame response to me. Are you coddling me Steve, now
that I am "elderly?"

Zee

> >>Steve was not refuting ME George. Steve was refuting BEA as he so
> jockularly calls Dr. Beatrice Golomb, she of the 27 page cv. Hmmm.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>
> SBH
David Rind - 13 Feb 2005 04:46 GMT
> True enough. It may well be that pravachol and other statins have
> significant anti-stroke effect only in other well-selected groups. None
> was seen in this trial, though effect on TIAs barely missed
> significance (p = 0.051 = 94.9% chance that pravachol really did
> decrease TIAs in the trial).

I agree with most of what Dr. Harris wrote in his post, but feel the
need to object to the above interpretation of p values. Assuming the
study was done correctly and pravachol really has no effect on TIAs, we
would only have expected to see a result as extreme as the result they
saw about 5.1% of the time. This is not the same as saying that there is
94.9% chance that pravachol really does decrease TIAs. You can't know
that from the study. It depends, among other things, on what the prior
prob