Still trying to...

Right. There is no treatment, there is no cure and there is no
recovery, beyond what nature will do on its own and rehabilitation to
allow one to better function and that limited to how damaged one has
been. Some severely injured statin users are being misdiagnosed with
Parkinson's, ALS, MS and profound mulitple strokes, until they get into
see one of the four or five doctors in the U.S. who know what it is
(Phillips at Scripps Mercy San Diego being one). There is no recovery
for any of those either, if we mean--back to the way they were.

It is a very hard thing to bear. It was avoidable. And you know what?
Each and every one of those people thought they had to take the drug.
The medical profession who get their drugs continuing education from
pharma (the same pharma Rennie decries) told them so. The ads told them
so: They had a serious, serious health problem. Name it there is
someone on this newsgroup who represents each one of those serious,
serious problems and is taking a statin putting up with side effect
because they "have to take it."

I can't begin to fathom what a statin drug will do to a heart already
damaged. To one who has already had bypass surgery. How many I wonder
do not recognize the symptoms they are experiencing are likely from
statins not from their original health "problem".

There is no recovery for the profound damage to the myelin sheath which
will happen to all who take statins eventually if the coenzyme q10
theory of statin damage is correct. If there was people with  MS would
have 'recovered' by now from their nerve damage. It is similar if not
identical.

Zee

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 ?