I'm over 50.  But that's almost beside the point.

The point is, that conceding your "reality" for the sake of discussion, that
does not to my way of thinking justifying providing disinformation to people
reading this newsgroup looking for information.  It does not justify posting
one sided stuff that may convince folks to avoid medications that are
overwhelmingly likely to help them, and which, if the person is unlucky
enough to one of the small minority which does suffer side effects, will not
produce debilitating symptoms as a result of the side effects if the person
is properly monitored and diagnosed.

OK.

And I believe that in the event that you described symptoms consistent with
statin induced adverse side effects, and were not told that you would be
tested for them and/or would not be taken off the statin at least
temporarily, that you could demand to speak with another doctor or a
supervisor.

That's probably the right thing to do.

Then we've agreed to agree on that much.

I disagree.  I'm certain it happens quite a bit of its own accord, and it
happens somewhat based upon the patient taking appropriate action.

Steve

Then you would know.

Yes of course, why wouldn't I?

Yes, sore throat comes to mind.
  Have

No, I don't remember ever having penicillin.

Yes but in reality they don't.
People aged from 50 upward (when most heart attacks occur) would have
grown up in a culture that did not question doctors. It is changing,
possibly due to the popularity of PC's and usenet.

The public system is the one that you have when you don't have health
insurance. You get the treatment required but you don't get to choose
your doctor.
  If the doctor made a disparaging racial comment, for example,

Under those circumstances I am sure you could.

Me to, heart attack, cardiac arrest twice.

I am happy with that his opinion is accurate, after all I did improve
some what after stopping the drug.

I will leave them to answer if they wish.

In the above statement you are of course correct, no argument.

The impossibility arises because in reality it just doesn't happen.

Yes

Because there *are* potential side effects of the drug, they can be serious,
and the symptoms you describe here, if presented to medical personnel, are
within the set of symptoms indicative of those side effects.

Would you have taken penicillin for the first time, if "prescribed it"?
Have you ever had occasion to have an antibiotic prescribed to you?  Have
you ever been asked whether you are allergic to penicillin?

Education has nothing to do with it.  Drugs *are* drugs.  It is essentially
unavoidable that they have side effects.  Anyone, regardless of experience
or education has the capacity to know and understand that they are entitled
to ask questions, and entitled to receive answers.

I'm afraid I don't understand precisely what you mean by "the public
system."  But I cannot conceive that you must tolerate "the" doctor who
shows up.  If the doctor made a disparaging racial comment, for example,
you're telling me that you could not demand a different doctor?

Three times over.

To be more certain that the opinion is accurate.

We will have to agree to disagree, then.

It's not a question of what I choose.  It's a question of what someone
showing up in this newsgroup for the first time, seeking information, will
choose.  Those that read what they write, without understanding that what
they write reflects serious bias, can potentially be damaged, or worse, end
up dead.

I disagree.  See above.

But Sharon and Zee aren't directing their "help" to that minority, or at
least not with the posts that they write.  They are directing them to
everyone.  And while I don't understand the phenomena, plenty of people come
to Usenet newsgroups and will accept what they read there as "gospel",
notwithstanding that they don't know squat about the topic or about the
posters whom they are reading.  If one reads what these two ladies write,
one may will simply refuse statin therapy because "statins are bad and cause
serious side effects", and the doctors and the pharmaceuticals are
conspiring to ignore and/or cover this up.

In my opinion, I'm the one helping the minority.  I acknowledge that a very
small minority will not be able to tolerate statin therapy, but that this
minority can avoid serious damage by being educated about statins, by
demanding that questions be answered, that recommended periodic testing
protocols be followed, and that, if they present symptoms, these symptoms be
understood and taken seriously by allegedly competent medical personnel.

Frankly, your post indicates that the above paragraph represents an
impossibility.  I just don't understand why.

Steve

<snip>

Possibly, but I am not a lawyer, are you?

With the figures you are stating why would they consider statin damage
at all.

No, I took the drug because I was prescribed it

Steve, that is you, not all of us have the education / resources that
you have.

In the public system we cannot just up and fire the treating doctor, we
do not have a choice here.

No they are not, but I owe my life to them, how about you.

No, why would I.

I don't see them as scare tactics Steve, which BTW by the way brings us
back a full circle.

Imo Zee and Sharon are posting informed information based on personal
experience and research, you can choose not to read them of course, as
those that do can make up their own minds whether to risk being one of
those 0.07% you mentioned.

You are campaigning for the good of the majority, well guess what, they
don't need it.

it's the 0.07% minority that need the help.

Cappy

Which would *be* malpractice.

And, having had three heart attacks, I can assure you that you are wrong.
There isn't a drug that can be prescribed for me that I'm not going to
discuss with the prescribing doctor thoroughly, and for which I'm not going
to demand complete information about.  The fact of the matter is that I
fired a doctor, while laying in a hospital bed recovering from a heart
attack.  When another doctor from my cardiology practice came in to see me
(hurriedly, I assure you) to find out what the problem was, he was told no
uncertain terms to keep that particular doctor away from me, even if it
meant having a second doctor from that same practice travel to the hospital
just to see me, on pain of the entire practice being told to "take a hike."

In short, doctors are not gods.

And you've confirmed this with a second opinion?

Which is, of course, no answer at all.  Or perhaps you agree with their
scare tactics.

Steve

I was treated with the accepted drug regime at the time yes.

  You appear to be one of the vast minority of people who

Strangely enough I don't feel like I was subjected to malpractice, I
just don't believe they considered the statin when making their diagnosis.
  In other words, you

Steve, I don't know if you have suffered a heart attack or not but I
assure you the last thing on your mind is the possible adverse affects
from the drugs prescribed to you, and even if you are in a frame of mind
to comprehend what is being offered, you are still going to take them
regardless.

I was told by an Immunologist that it was the Statin that caused the
initial reaction and the current symptoms are consistent with statin damage.

If the shoe fits.....

Big time.

So the short version is that you following your heart attack, you were
treated properly.  You appear to be one of the vast minority of people who
had an adverse reaction to a statin, and were then subjected to malpractice
on the part of the emergency room and your own doctor.  In other words, you
were warned (or should have been warned, if not, more malpractice) of the
side effects of statins, but took the drug anyway because of its potential
benefits, as you should have, and were thereafter damaged by idiots.

Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing to
do with statin therapy.

From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in satisfaction
of the "public's right to know", such as are being conducted by Zee and
Sharon Hope in this forum, should take the form of posting each and every
article that tells a horror story about statins, denigrating doctors, and
denigrating the pharmaeutical industry in the hopes that people who should
be on a statin of some sort will avoid them on the .07% chance that they
will have an adverse reaction, and will thereafter encounter medical
malpractice.

Got it.

Steve

Hi Bill
(ok the "death grip" was a bit much, at least for me anyway).
It's a very long story but here's the short of it.
Heart attack 1998, put on usual drug regime, ace, beta, aspirin, statin.
Stent fitted LAD 1999.
I was 49 years old.
Multiple trips to ER complaining about everything from not feeling well
to aches and pains in what felt like every muscle in my body had
cramped. Incredible fatigue and shortness of breath, low exercise
tolerance, dizziness.
Sent home from ER every time after test revealed not having heart attack.
My own doctor put it down to stress and anxiety, who was I to disagree?
Woke up one morning with a rash and hives from the top of my head to the
soles of my feet, my face had swelled and my eye's closed up, couldn't
get my glasses on, calf muscles cramping and bad back ache and throat
closing up.
ER treated me with Steroids and some other drug (can't remember the
name) made me very ill, short stay in hospital.
Referred to Immunologist who suspected ACE but later confirmed Statin as
the problem (some sort of blood test I think).
He stopped Statin.
Within a short period of time I started to feel a little better and
improved as time went by.
The rash and hives took approx 6 months to go away.
Not once during this 3 year period did anyone alter or change any of my
drugs until the rash appeared.

What I am left with now is:
Fits of tiredness,
Calf muscles cramping with the slightest stretching and painful when
walking,
Back pain, can be severe at times, (statin's or coincidence?)
Anxiety (probably due to not being able to work)
I am also told that I repeat myself quite often,
I am also told that I repeat myself quite often, lol

I have just turned 55 and a CABG last year has left me feeling a lot
better and if it was not for the above I reckon I could climb Everest,
(well maybe not Everest).

Drugs at the moment:
Beta 25mg twice a day
Plavix 75mg / day
Nexium (gastro)
Vioxx prn

Cappy
Cappy
Damn there I go again.....

As the sun pulls away from the shore and the boat sinks slowly in the east.

Could you elaborate on what those death grip clutches are and how you know
they are attribuatibe to statins. Perhaps someone here can help you.

Bill

So stuff those that can't..... eh Steve, majority rules and all that.

Problem is as I see it, there is no back door, no way out, no fix once
damaged, that's what makes taking this drug like a game of Russian Roulette.

And to those that are damaged, who cares, certainly not the Doctors,
Pharmo's,....if the light is a bit bad for some of those professionals
maybe by removing their blinkers would allow them to see outside their
consulting rooms and into the lounge rooms of those who have been damaged.

Zee is bringing informed (by experience) and documented information to
those contemplating taking this drug, and I hope she continues to do so.

Ahem,
Cappy
(Still trying to out run the death grip clutches of Statin therapy)

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 ?