Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / February 2005
Statins do NOT protect against Azlheimer's
|
|
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
|
|