Bill,
Yes, I have one of those cars but the feature only words (at least on my
car) when you are within about 20 yards of the car. Regarding the
statins--I was taking Red Yeast Rice and the statin pills at the same
time. However, the dosage level for the statin was only (Provachol 20
mg--one pill per day). I was only taking one Red Yeast Rice capsule per
day. Many people take 40 mg statin pills or even 80 mg statin pills--they
are taking a much higher dose of statins than I was taking. Even when I
cut back to one half of a pill (10 mg) per day and no Red Yeast Rice
capsules--I continued to have high creatinine levels.
Jason

Thanks, that means a lot coming from you.

It strikes me that there is no general denial about penicillin, so there is
no outcry against "I'm allergic to penicillin" bracelets, and doctors
routinely ask about penicillin and other drug allergies when taking a
patient's history.  (and my husband now always answers "Lipitor" even though
the mechanism of the AEs is not like an allergen.)

That general acceptance of adverse effects, and thereby appropriate
precautions, are what seems to be missing with statin drugs.  Given that
they are the most prescribed class of drugs in the world, and in the history
of the world, the 'rare' adverse effects can appear in a significant count
of people.

My dad has been allergic to penicillin for as long as I can remember, and I
have never heard any 'blame the patient' comments about that, never.  Yet
the denial of the statin AEs (while everyone says all drugs have AEs and
agrees in the abstract) seems to generate attacks on the patient and those
seeking treatment, and those attempting to warn others of the unpublicized
and unacknowledged dangers.

Not saying you have done this, Hawki, just a general observation.

Why do you think there is such a drastic difference in the general reaction
to AEs from the two drugs?

snip

Frankly, this thread has become so convuluted that I can't pick out the
exact quotes that caused me to issue the "compliment". I am looking for
anything "balanced" and not one-sided or unfairly biased. As an example
... if someone posts that cigarette smoking causes lung-cancer, I really
don't object to that because it's a well-proven fact that is
substantiated by study after study and is well-accepted and well-known
in the current medical community. This would not be a biased remark. But
if someone posts saying that cell phone usage causes brain cancer ...
that is a biased remark because it is NOT accepted (at least as of yet)
as something that has been substantiated consistently by large studies
over and over. In fact, there have been studies that conclude that they
do and that they don't.

Same thing for statins, and same thing for most of Sharon's posts. I
have said myself previously that I don't blame Sharon for her stance and
I feel bad that her husband has suffered. But I disagree with you
slightly ... when someone takes words out of context from studies to
make it sound like those studies support their biased view (and by
making it sound like that biased view is commonly accepted fact), or
when someone misrepresents the larger body of evidence out there by
making assertions and then only quoting the studies that suppor that
view ... not only is this not balanced, it really is "inaccurate" ...
and it is misleading.

You are right ... if there are only a small % of people who experience
an adverse effect ... once it hits you or someone in your family, to you
... it is 100%. In fact, while my Dad has been on a statin for many
years and I honestly believe it has saved his life, my Mom tried them
and couldn't tolerate even the immediate short-term side effects. She
has since been placed on one that with the absolute lowest dosage ...
she seems to be tolerating. So for her, even though the drugs maybe
cause those side effects in a very small % of patients, she DID
experience them.

It is certainly appropriate to warn people OF THE RISK of adverse
effects ... absolutely! It is certainly worthwhile to relate your own
personal experience and try to help others avoid similar experiences by
making constructive suggestions. But it is not appropriate and
misleading to misrepresent the facts and try to pull the wool over
people's eyes.

What is appropriate? Let people know about your own experience, but also
let people know what the facts really are ... or at least choose
language that acknowledges that these are your personal experiences and
the experience of others ... but maybe not representative of ALL
experiences. All drugs have adverse effects ...we know that. But the
facts are that the adverse effects usually occur in a very small % of
the population. Let people know what those % are (vs. "STATINS CAUSE
______")and let them make their own informed decision. Advise patients
to question doctors when they prescribe meds. Advise patients to
question pharmacists about meds. Advise patients to research meds that
have been prescribed by researching their adverse effects on the
internet (by Sharon as well as more unbiased sources). Advise patients
to go for second opinions. etc, etc.

Larry E.

Jason ...I can completely understand that point of view ... it makes
complete sense. But as I said in a previous post:

"If a doctor does this, there is a certain amount of ownness on you as
the patient to question it. I question nearly every recommendation that
my doctors give me asking if there are other options ... and whether
what they are recommending is really necessary. To a certain degree, you
must take responsibility as a patient for your own care. Even with
cancers, the right treatment option isn't always obvious and all oncs
can do is to help you better understand the options ... you must make
the final choice. Few patients realize how empowered they are and that
is one of the biggest issues we face. The physician should be viewed as
a consultant and since they are humans, they are not perfect.

Lastly, although I am not a physician ... I could see where there could
be situations where I would as a physician recommend that changing the
diet be tried first ... but there could very well be others where it
wouldn't be advisable and I might need to recommend that a patient
immediately be placed on a statin. So ... perhaps a 45 y/o man in
otherwise good health has angina and has an elevated cholesterol ... but
his stress test/thallium/possibly angiography show minimal or partial
occlusions. Makes sense here to try diet first. A 75 y/o man with 80%
occlusions who is diabetic with aggressive cardiac disease and who is
already not eating a lot of fatty foods ... whose occlusion % has
changed from 50% to 80% in the past year ... might be a situation where
I could see needing to go directly to a statin."

Larry E.