For g-d sakes, learn to read.  There's nothing about "majority rules" in
that.  My point is that statins benefit the vast majority of people.  They
are not right for everyone, just as penicillin is not the antibiotic of
choice for everyone, and just as caffein isn't a "drug" that I can tolerate
given my propensity to a fatal cardiac arrhythmia.  Anyone seeking to
deprive that majority of these drugs, and/or to scare everyone away from
using them, is barking up the wrong tree.  The proper answer is full and
total disclosure to everyone, and properly attentive followups from doctors
who do not, as you posted in another post, do not to consider the statin
when making their diagnosis when presented with a patient taking statins and
having symptoms of potential statin induced side effects.

Bulls--t.  I didn't write that, and if you think that I did, I feel sorry
for your incapacity to read plain English for comprehension.  It now seems
to me that you perfectly well understand that *you* tolerated being
ill-informed, and being misdiagnosed (even now you don't want to acknowledge
that the misdiagnosis equated to malpractice), and you are feeling sorry for
yourself.  That's fine, but don't take a position calculated to injure the
vast number of people who can tolerate statins, and be helped by them,
because of the mistakes of your doctors and your attitude of tolerating them
as though doctors are g-ds.

No it is not.  Roulette is gambling without any foreknowledge at all. less
than 1 in 35 that a particular number will come up, less than 50-50 of black
or red, etc., and who knows where the ball will land next?  And once it
does, there are no "do overs."  Prescribing drugs that may have side effects
for a very small number of people is not roulette, provided that the patient
is informed (forewarned), or bothers to demand the s/he be informed, the
requisite monitoring program is put into practice and adhered to, and, in
the event that the patient has what may be an adverse reaction, a doctor
makes the correct diagnosis and changes the prescription, allowing the
patient to avoid serious damage before the side effects become more serious
and/or permanent (you get to "do it over").

Correct.

And that's the fault of the pharmaceutical companies, and/or the vast number
of doctors who do not commit malpractice, and/or the vast majority of people
who do inform themselves, and/or the vast majority of people who can take
statins and benefit from them without side effects?

Then what did you say?

Steve

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

So to rephrase: More people can tolerate statins, so stuff those that
can't, simple really.
Those that can tolerate statins don't have to worry, no need to mention
them.

 What I wrote was that publishing information that is skewed

Actually Zee is helping to get the minority figures down.

Yes it is.

  For many, if not most (I don't have exact numbers), side

For many, but not all.

In reality most people just don't read these list's, they put their
trust in their doctor(s).

I didn't say they don't care per se.

Who said that?  What I wrote was that publishing information that is skewed
and biased in order to scare people off of something that will help the vast
majority of them is not servicing "the public's right to know."

That is not so.  For many, if not most (I don't have exact numbers), side
effects of statins are reversed once use ceases.

And, I am not aware of people being damaged within so short a time that had
they been effectively monitored, *as recommended by health professionals and
the pharmaceutical companies who make and sell statins*, they would not have
suffered any damage at all.  Every statin drug comes with a list of side
effects, a list of contraindications, a list of drug interactions that are
potentially harmful, a warning to report the side effects, and a statement
that tests for monitoring  potential harmful effects are necessary.  Indeed,
the vast majority of drugs of all comes come with all of the above save only
the requirement for testing.

This is highly inaccurate.  I am not aware that doctors and people in the
pharmaceutical industries don't care.

She is bringing highly one sided and biased information to a forum where
people are seeking help.  Any competent physician will fully inform a
patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug being
prescribed.  You cannot fill the prescription without receiving a rather
lengthy written instruction and information paper that describes drug
interactions and possible harmful effects.  The problem, if there is one, is
that people don't listen.

Sure.

Steve

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 ?