You claimed to be using this forum to satisfy the public's right to know.
That knowledge includes the good, as well as the bad, about the
pharmaceutical industry.

Your bias is showing.  The public's right to know should be from balanced
sources, not from biased sources.  Otherwise, you have become what you are
claiming to contradict.

You would have absolutely no way of knowing that without examining them,
having complete medical histories from them, and being a qualified health
care professional.

Or might not.

Before or after the fact of their symptoms?

That's the *whole* point, Zee.  A while back I posted something about the
inherent stupidity of someone coming to this newsgroup and asking for
medical advice.  It is equally stupid to not have asked questions when the
medication was being prescribed, and/or to not have read the material that,
by law, comes with the medication.

Your brief is to scare away the 99.03% of people who will be able to take a
statin drug without side effects because of the remaining .07%, some
fraction of them will have not been properly informed of the side effects,
the contraindications, the drug interactions, and the need for testing to
monitor for those side effects.  That failure to inform on the part of the
doctor would be malpractice, the failure to inform oneself (or at least ask
the questions) is their own failure.  The failure to be properly diagnosed
when suffering what could be a statin induced side effect (as, for example,
detailed above by Cappy), is again medical malpractice.

From your typical posts, no one would take away the information that you
people should take them if they need to.  Apparently, there is some balance
in your point of view that has come out now that you've responded to this
series of posts.

It is a problem because you typically present only one side, the side that
is relevent for less than .1% of those who take statins.  As noted above,
this is the first post from you that I can recall you stating that people
who need statins should take them.

But the suppression of information is in your imagination.  Neither doctors
nor the pharmaceutical industries suppress the drug interactions, the
contraindications, the potential side effects and the need for constant
blood tests to monitor various functions when taking statins.  Unless you
consider malpractice on the part of the prescribing doctor to be
"suppression" of information.

Your failure to appreciate that he has at least as big an axe to grind as
the one that you imagine is wielded by the pharmaceutical is part of the
problem.

Steve

LOL. I am under no obligation to represent pharma. They are well looked
after by those denizens of Goebbel's profession whom they employ. I am
in most instances responding to query from those who have already
crossed over that thin line. They are experiencing symptoms that might
be attributed to statins. No-one apparently has told them. They have
not done their homework, granted. (No point rubbing their faces in it
here Steve). And if statins work the way it is said they do, that may
be damage that is not recoverable. (Is MS or AlS damage 'recoverable?')
That is why it is so important not to take them if you don't need to;
to take as little a dose as possible if you do (varying per individual
need of course) and to use them for as short a time as possible. Yes
take all this information, and whatever else you find, and go talk to
your doctor. And if he or she won't find another. Know that the liver
enzyme tests aren't going to do it, know that ignoring the symptoms and
tolerating for the sake of risk/benefit may not be very wise in light
of rhabdomyolysis. Bang it's there. Too late.

If people can tolerate them and benefit and *truly* need them then well
and good. Why is it a problem that I provide another side of the story
with which to weigh a decision? You have it. Obviously the person
posting here saying "could?" does not.

I have no problem with anyone using statins. I have a problem with
suppression of information. Deliberate suppression. And as you must
acknowledge Steve I am not alone in thinking that is wrong, must and
will change. Then, I think, there will be fewer problem drugs like
statins. Who is to say what difficuties and harm might have been
avoided if the runaway train that is the pharmaceutical business had
been throttled back or controlled some time go, as is being done now.

I didn't write Rennie's editorial. I just posted it. Those damning
words are his.

Zee

Indeed.  Yet for every article that you post that casts medical
professionals and/or the pharmaceutical industry in a bad light, there are
at least a hundred that cast them in a good light.  If you wish to
facilitate the public's right to know, one would expect you to post a more
balanced spectrum of information.

Again, for every person who cannot tolerate statins, there are literally
tens of thousands who can, do and benefit from statins.

Steve

<previous posts snipped; they are available via google.com

Steve

NIH, ICMJE, Cochrane Collaboration--all have said pharmas (with FDA
collusion) have withheld vital (no pun intended) information from the
public.

I believe in the public right to know.

Zee

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292.11.1359v1?etoc

"One consequence of this lack of reporting is a persistent bias in
favor of positive results and therefore in favor of the newer and more
expensive treatments. Another consequence is that harmful effects found
in unpublished trials disappear without a trace, since the US Food and
Drug Administration (FDA) has no mandate to report them to the public.
The bad news about new drugs is disseminated later than the good news
or not at all, resulting in widespread publication and outcome bias and
in direct and widespread harm to patients.3-4"

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292.11.1363v1

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors Will Require
Registration of Clinical Trials for Publication

"Honest reporting begins with revealing the existence of all clinical
studies, even those that reflect unfavorably on a research sponsor's
product.  Unfortunately, selective reporting of trials does occur, and
it distorts the body of evidence available for clinical decision
making."

http://grants1.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-04-064.html

"NIH is proposing to make all NIH-funded research papers publicly
available
six months after their publication in journals.  It wants all authors
receiving NIH funding to send electronic copies of "final manuscripts"
to
NIH, which would make them freely available via PubMed six months after
their official publication.

The agency is now seeking public comment on this proposal.  As you
might
expect, for-profit publishers (as well as some putatively nonprofit
scientific societies) are fighting it tooth and nail.  It may help
stiffen
NIH's resolve if they hear from science writers who believe publicly
funded
research should be available to the public."

You've also done this:

"Zee isn't posting about "recovering" from anything.  She is posting about
the negative impact she perceives to have been caused by a class of drugs
that is used by millions of people without them being harmed."

And the problem with your claim that you do what is described in my earlier
post (quoted in your post) is that you simultaneously denigrate medical
professionals and pharmaceutical companies, doing your level best to render
any advice that you (and others) might post that folks seek "professional
opinions" to appear as a waste of time.  One doesn't, after all, ask a
dishonest stock broker which stock to buy.

Steve

Exactly what I have done:

"...free to recommend that folks seek
professional opinions, and become educated enough to question those
opinions
rationally,..."

Zee

The proper analogy would be Christopher Reeve posting hundreds of posts
about equestrian sports being too dangerous to be engaged in, and those who
promote such sports not properly informing the public of those dangers.  Zee
isn't posting about "recovering" from anything.  She is posting about the
negative impact she perceives to have been caused by a class of drugs that
is used by millions of people without them being harmed.  Yes, just like
horseback riding, the use of statins entails a very small degree of risk.

Your comments re MADD are even less apropriate.  No rational person can
argue that people should not drive drunk, or that those who do should not be
subject to swift, immediate, and firm justice.

I detect no such bigotry in George's posts.  Rather, I detect a great deal
of bigotry with respect to medical professionals and the pharmaceutical
industry, in Zee's posts, and in your posts.  While she, and you, are free
to post your opinions, others are just as free to point out the bias in your
opinions.  And certainly, others are free to recommend that folks seek
professional opinions, and become educated enough to question those opinions
rationally, rather than to rely upon posts such as those you routinely post
and posts such as those Zee routinely posts.

Your use of analogy, and accusations of bigotry, are totally erroneous and
unwarranted, respectively.

Steve

George,

Would you say the same thing to Christopher Reeve about spinal paralysis?
Is his interest in spinal nerve recovery "polluted by his obsession,"
because he has first-hand knowledged of that kind of disability?  Do you
similarly heckel and attack "mothers against drunk drivers" who happen to
have lost a child to a drunk driving murderer, because they are "polluted by
their obsession"?

What kind of politically incorrect prejudice permits you to disparage people
who have become disabled by a particular specific situation - STATIN ADVERSE
EFFECTS, simply for being advocates for
1) an effective treatment for themselves and others who were also similarly
disabled, and
2) an effective means of screening so more people do not become disabled, or
lacking that, at least forewarned awareness and informed consent?  What
about first-hand experience of being disabled by statin adverse effects
causes them to be less deserving of free speech, in your opinion?

Your Bigotry against the handicapped is unbecoming.

Zee your point of view is so polluted by your obsession with statins
that it (your point of view) is meaningless.

Let anyone browsing this group do an author search under Zee or Fresh
Horses and you will find some poor soul who posts 10's if not hundreds
of posts a day every day all saying the same thing.  Statins are bad.
Well for you they were bad.  For me they are fine.

Trouble is you might scare some poor soul into believing you are right
and that in turn might cost them years of their life.

And yes I would rather trust my overworked doctor than you in a
heartbeat.

Any lay person with time on their hands and no outside interests (in
your case 24 hours a day it seems) can scour the internet and make a
disinformation case against anything sound reasonable.

And since I am not gay, my GP (hunk?) works out a lot and has a
backround in sports medicine which suits my particular needs just fine
thank you.

How about get a life while you can and find another crusade.  Ideally
one where other people mught not suffer due to your obsession prone
personality.

George

With all due respect <g> Louise should become as informed as she can
and take her questions and concerns to a physician. If I can respond to
her requests for information with credible citations I will. I will
also tell her of my experience, which may not be hers, and give her
urls where she can read of others experiences. We all should survey and
not rely on one poor over-worked family physician internist or
cardiologist to do everything for us. That's the adult way. You on the
other hand, at last post, were still taking one physician's advice
because, I paraphrase, he's a hunk who works out a lot.

Zee

Louise, with all due respect get your medical advice from your health
care professionals as opposed to Zee.  Anyone can cut and paste
stufies to make any kind of arguement.

Hopefully you have a doctor/s that can give you the care and advice
you need.

And the same for Crestor?  I just started it recently and I think it is
giving me a great deal of stomach upset.  However, I take a lot of
medications and it's hard to isolate the factors involved.

Louise

Salut Ted

Read here for the experiences of others who took pravachol:

http://www.askapatient.com/viewrating.asp?drug=19898&name=PRAVACHOL

http://medications.com/go/se/Pravachol

And here for a list of possible side effects:

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/pravast_ad.htm

In my own experience with pravachol, yes, it can cause similar symptoms
to lipitor. I know of many who had to stop taking it because of marked
side effects. However there is at least one poster on this newsgroup
who says he takes it with no difficulty.

In my opinion if you have had side effects to one, you will likely have
side effects from all. Only you can determine if the side effects are
worth it.

Do not be lulled into thinking liver enzyme tests will detect all
statin induced myopathy. You can have muscle pain and normal liver
tests.

Statins deplete coenzyme q10. This has been proven. It has not been
proven however that taking coq10 orally will replenish the body's
supply. Former US astronaut Duane Graveline took lipitor and suffered
memory loss, transient global amnesia and other cognitive problems. So
did thousands of others including me. On Graveline's website and in his
book he discusses what coenzyme q10 depletion does to the body and
brain.

http://www.spacedoc.net

These sites have helpful information about statins. The latter two are
from an epidemiology group working out of the University of British
Columbia in Canada. They take no industry funding.

http://www.medicalconsumers.org
http://www.medicationsense.com/
http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter48.htm
http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter49.htm

Do all the research you can and make an informed decision. Google is a
great resource.

Zee

Doctor piut me on Lipitor a few weeks ago, I developed side effects,
diahrea, muscle aches,
He now wants me to take Pravachol, Are there any side effects to this
as well ?