Here is her CV. Not all about publish or perish.
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/faculty/golomb/

No. Personal experience here means nothing. Not mine, not Michael
Hope's. Why should yours be any different.

And those two studies: Prospect and HPS; are they not the studies James
Wright refers to when he says he is STILL waiting for the negative
results he requested from the study authors. ALL the negative results.
Nada.

http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter49.htm
Because large numbers of problematic patients were excluded, the HPS
results cannot be used to predict the safety and tolerance of
simvastatin in the general population. "

I want you to GO to that seminar. And engage "Bea" (uhuh) in
discussion, or in heckle; and report back to us.

Zee

Zee

jockularly calls Dr. Beatrice Golomb, she of the 27 page cv. Hmmm.
Could Steve be envious?  Nahh. Our boy got big cohones: Steve's balls
clank when he crosses a (news)room. What could it bea? <<

COMMENT:

I don't remember calling the lady "Bea." Did I really? Oh Bea-have.

My CV surely isn't 27 pages long. On the other hand, I don't have to
publish or perish, so I don't have to generated a crappy paper every
few months, in order to pad it.

I'll tell you a secret about scientific CVs. There's a big difference
between somebody who's never published in a referreed journal and
somebody who has. But not that much difference between somebody with a
dozen papers and somebody with a hundred. Fred Sanger had a one page
CV, but one paper on protein sequencing won him the Nobel prize in
1958, and another on gene sequencing won him a share of another Nobel
in 1980.  Quality matters. If you're not trying to be promoted (which
Sanger wasn't), you can get some bench work done. That's a luxury fewer
and fewer people have these days.

If Dr. Golomb is a good scientist, she won't be making numerical claims
in the popular press that she hasn't published. Without seeing such a
publication, I haven't a clue as to what she means by a 20% side effect
rate. What is she counting as a side effect?  A day of diarrhea? A
stuffy nose?  What?  Until we know, it's impossible to evaluate this
stuff, so why discuss it?

The PROSPECT study contains 8,700 patient-years of pravachol use,
compared double blind with mental status testing and ability to carry
out activities of daily living, with another 8,700 patient-years of
placebo. That's so much more experience than any given clinician ever
sees in a lifetime of prescribing any drug, that it's ridiculous. And
it's all blinded, which is a luxury no clinician gets. And they saw
nothing. And they published it.  And if you don't like that, there are
20,000 patients in the HPS study, where this time they did have the
power to see stroke reduction, and did see it. But no difference in
cognitive decline, either. But no increase, either.   I lay Dr.
Golomb's anecdotes along side stuff like this, and what am I supposed
to think?

If personal experience means anything, I've been prescribing statins
for a decade and half myself, and I've taken them for years. But I know
personal experience doesn't mean much. That's possibly the difference
between Dr. Golomb and myself.

SBH

No one like to see Steve post more than I do. Who cares if he is right
or wrong. He's so good at it we line up to watch him do it.

I fear many lay people come here not knowing much

You fear....????? BwahahabahaaHA. Well if they want to read a statin
education in progress they can google your posts: from avid Crestor
defender (my cardiologist who works at the Ontario Heart and Stroke
Brothel) to sober re-think wiht a new cardiologist and a different
statin.

How they fall from grace. Watch it Steve. You could end up George's
yesterday's man.

Steve was not refuting ME George. Steve was refuting BEA as he so
jockularly calls Dr. Beatrice Golomb, she of the 27 page cv. Hmmm.
Could Steve be envious?  Nahh. Our boy got big cohones: Steve's balls
clank when he crosses a (news)room. What could it bea?

Well we cannot say we saved you. Because in spite of the education you
have received at my and Michael Hope's expense, you still waited for
your doc to change your statin to something safer.

Zee

Thank you Dr. Harris for speaking to the group with proven science and
expert analysis.  I fear many lay people come here not knowing much
about the subject and leave with a distorted view of statin therapy.

Since it would take a lifetime to refute Zee and others with their
mesianic banter about the evil associated with this class of
medications it is appreciated that you take the time to do so once in
a while.

I say a lifetime because this "cause" has obviously become their main
mission in life.

cardiovascular disease who experience benefit from statins to nonfatal
stroke, which may lead to improvements in cognition that may help to
balance out harms to cognition from other mechanisms. Although there
are trends toward increases in fatal stroke with statins in most of the

large statin trials, those who have died cannot complete cognitive
surveys.<<

COMMENT:

Sorry, but this is a bogus argument, unless you name the studies. In
the one study you DO discuss (PROSPER), there was NO possiblity that a
difference between recognized nonfatal stroke or stroke influenced the
cognitive outcome, because recognized stroke of any kind brought the
treatment and trial to a halt for the individual patient, so no
cognitive tests were done after that. All cognitive tests reported are
prior to ANY stroke endpoint. They show no difference between treatment
and placebo groups across more than 3 years of on-treatment testing
done every 3 months, including the last set of tests before treatment
end. This is NOT consistant with any negative (or positive) cognitive
effect in this population. There was no difference between groups on
the last on-treatment cognitive test (comparing groups) or the
second-to-baseline test. Both groups decline from baseline to end, but
they decline in cognitive function at the same rate.

statins in most of the large statin trials, those who have died cannot
complete cognitive surveys.<<

COMMENT

NO. It's no use trying to make anything of a trend unless it's a trend
in large numbers of people. The other reason this argument won't run
even if testing had been done after stroke, is that when you're talking
about fatal stroke, you're talking about tiny numbers.  PROSPER (for
example) is a study of 5800 people, and there were 14 (placebo) vs 22
(Pravachol) fatal strokes. Those extra 8 fatal strokes are not
significant (p = .19) and in any case, cognitive testing NOT done on 6
dead people is certainly not going to influence any mean difference in
cognitive testing in 5800  people, even if they WERE doing testing in
non-fatal stroke patients (which they weren't), and the 8 dead stroke
patients all came from this group. Come on. Bad inferential crap like
this is why the net is called the net of a million lies. You can
sometimes get away with this stuff if nobody wants to do the work to
look the studies up, but sometimes you run afoul of people like me, who
will. So stop it.

trial with its sole focus on the elderly population. <<

True enough. It may well be that pravachol and other statins have
significant anti-stroke effect only in other well-selected groups. None
was seen in this trial, though effect on TIAs barely missed
significance (p = 0.051 = 94.9% chance that pravachol really did
decrease TIAs in the trial).

attacks and nonfatal strokes was actually matched by a similar number
of increased fatal strokes.<<

COMMENT:

Baloney-- that's quite wrong. The number of reduced transient ischemic
attacks was 77 (drug) vs 102 (placebo), a difference of 25, which blows
away differences in the stroke numbers (the totals for stroke plus TIA
in this study I note have been mis-done in the table, for they do not
add up to the stated drg/placebo 204/212, difference of 8, but are
actually 212/233, difference of 21). As for total strokes they were 135
(drug) vs 131 (difference of 4 in favor of placebo), which splits up
into non-fatal 116 (drug) v 119 (difference of 3 in favor of drug) and
fatal 22 (drug) vs 14 (difference of 8 in favor of placebo). These
number don't quite add up, either (there's one missing person), but
it's clear that the differences in fatal stroke numbers are too small
to decide that they simply came out of one group and went to the other.
Certainly they did NOT come out of the TIA group, for the difference of
25 there is reduced merely to 21 if you add in the total stroke
numbers. None of the stroke differences are significant, so nothing can
be said about this, either way.

participants considered for enrollment were placed on simvastatin, and
those who were not fully compliant were dropped from the study.
Participants who perceived problems on the drug, including cognitive
problems, may have dropped the study themselves or skipped pills
intentionally. In addition, participants who developed memory problems
may have had trouble remembering to take the pills even if they did not

recognize deterioration in cognitive function. This run-in process may
have excluded participants who developed cognitive problems on the
drug, selecting only those who did not experience problems. Over
one-third of those who were interested in enrolling were excluded
following this compliance run-in.<<

COMMENT:  This is an interesting hypothesis, that all the people would
had cognitive problems with statins were selected out in the first 6
weeks, and went out with the 1252 people given statin who didn't meet
inclusion criteria or who refused to participate. But anybody who
advances this argument for PROSPER had better accept the concomitant
conclusion, which is that if you *don't* have problems with statins in
6 weeks, THEN you won't have any for at least 3 years. Which is what
was then seen in the radomized 5804 people who went on to the next arm
of the trial. You can't just hypothesize parts of explanations you
like, but ignore the obligatory parts of the same hypotheses you don't.

measured in people who have experienced fatal stroke), benefits by
statins for cognitive function in those in whom a stroke was averted
might be expected.<<

COMMENT:
Nonsense, for reasons carefully explained above. The PROSPER trial
measured cognition before stroke, and also the number differences
between non-fatal and fatal stroke are non-significant.  In any case,
some hypothetical raising of mean cognitive scores by killing stroke
victims is far too small to affect scoring of cognitive function in
populations of patients 360 times larger than the number of excess
stroke deaths.

SBH

What happens to those of us who took them for years is quite different
from what happens in clincial trials. Frankie's husband for example
would have been deemed a raging success 6 months out, two years out;
and he is not alone. We hear from hundreds; we get corroboration from
their physicians and the pattern is the same. Over and over and over.
No; anecdote is not as good as fact. But it certainly raises question
in any reasonable person.

statins, stroke and cognition:
http://www.geriatrictimes.com/g040618.html

Second, the large trials enrolled people at high risk for
cardiovascular disease who experience benefit from statins to nonfatal
stroke, which may lead to improvements in cognition that may help to
balance out harms to cognition from other mechanisms. Although there
are trends toward increases in fatal stroke with statins in most of the
large statin trials, those who have died cannot complete cognitive
surveys. The impact on total number of strokes was unaffected in the
PROSPER trial with its sole focus on the elderly population. In the
PROSPER trial, the number of reduced transient ischemic attacks and
nonfatal strokes was actually matched by a similar number of increased
fatal strokes.

Finally, the HPS used what is termed an "active run-in." For six weeks,
participants considered for enrollment were placed on simvastatin, and
those who were not fully compliant were dropped from the study.
Participants who perceived problems on the drug, including cognitive
problems, may have dropped the study themselves or skipped pills
intentionally. In addition, participants who developed memory problems
may have had trouble remembering to take the pills even if they did not
recognize deterioration in cognitive function. This run-in process may
have excluded participants who developed cognitive problems on the
drug, selecting only those who did not experience problems. Over
one-third of those who were interested in enrolling were excluded
following this compliance run-in.

Because statins reduce nonfatal stroke (and cognition is obviously not
measured in people who have experienced fatal stroke), benefits by
statins for cognitive function in those in whom a stroke was averted
might be expected. It must be emphasized that the randomized trial
evidence has, to date, uniformly failed to show cognitive benefits by
statins and has supported no effect or frank and significant harm to
cognitive function.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Frisoni GB, Fratiglioni L, Fastbom J et al. (1999), Mortality in
nondemented subjects with cognitive impairment: the influence of
health-related factors. Am J Epidemiol 150(10):1031-1044.

Golomb BA, Kane T, Dimsdale JA (2004), Severe irritability associated
with statin cholesterol-lowering drugs. QJM 97(4):229-235.

Golomb BA, Yang E, Denenberg J, Criqui M (2003), Statin-associated
adverse events. P95. Presented at the 43rd Annual Conference on
Cardiovascu

King DS, Jones DW, Wofford MR et al. (2001), Cognitive impairment
associated with atorvastatin. Presented at the American College of
Clinical Pharmacy Spring Practice and Research Forum. Salt Lake City;
April 22-25.

King DS, Wilburn AJ, Wofford MR et al. (2003), Cognitive impairment
associated with atorvastatin and simvastatin. Pharmacotherapy
23(12):1663-1667.

Korten AE, Jorm AF, Jiao Z et al. (1999), Health, cognitive, and
psychosocial factors as predictors of mortality in an elderly community
sample. J Epidemiol Community Health 53(2):83-88.

The article makes it clear that there are conflicting studies: some
show
no protection against dementia, others do. Obviously, much more
research
is needed.

Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins
against
this most debilitating disease, alzheimers? <<

COMMENT:

While we're visiting this subject, let us note that Alzheimer's is
responsible for maybe half of dementia only. A large fraction of the
other half is caused by mini-strokes and vascular disease. And of
course, there's a 20 to 30% overlap of people who have both problems.

Of these, Alzheirmer's is the process I would LEAST expect statins to
interfere with. They might, but they might not.  However, statins have
already show impressive anti-stroke capability, even in people with
normal cholesterol levels. So if statins do not work in slowing or
preventing progression of Alzheimer's, this in no way means we've ruled
out their role in preventing "dementia."

SBH

Another misleading subject line.....

The article makes it clear that there are conflicting studies: some show
no protection against dementia, others do. Obviously, much more research
is needed.

Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins against
this most debilitating disease, alzheimers?

L.

Many of us who have been exposed first-hand to the devastating cognitive
adverse effects of statins have been tremendously skeptical of the "Can
statins prevent Alz?????" headlines, which appeared at a time that
conveniently offset articles in the popular media that exposed the memory
loss caused by statins.

We doubters also questioned how the studies would differentiate between Alz
and statin-induced memory loss.

As it turns out, this latest study shows that statins do NOT prevent
Alzheimer's:

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=healthNews&storyID=2005-02
-10T211401Z_01_B371082_RTRIDST_0_HEALTH-STATINS-DEMENTIA-DC.XML
     Reuters.uk, UK - 5 hours ago
     NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs
belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem
to have any effect ...

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=healthNews&storyID=7598600
     Reuters - 5 hours ago
     NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs
belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem
to have any effect ...

     Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
     http://abcnews.go.com/Health/wireStory?id=488976
     ABC News - 5 hours ago
     Feb 10, 2005 - NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of
cholesterol-lowering drugs belonging to the statin family, such as Lipitor
or Pravacol, does not seem ...

Statins Don't Protect Against Dementia: Study
Thu Feb 10, 2005 9:15 PM GMT

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - The use of cholesterol-lowering drugs belonging
to the statin family, such as Lipitor or Pravacol, does not seem to have any
effect on the risk of dementia or Alzheimer's disease, according to findings
from a new study.

This supports the results of another study, but run counter other study
findings that have linked statin use with a reduced risk of dementia.

The current study involved elderly residents living in Cache County, Utah,
who were evaluated for statin use and dementia between 1995 and 1997 and
then again between 1998 and 2000.

Dr. John C. S. Breitner, from the VA Puget Sound Health Care System in
Seattle, and colleagues report their findings in the Archives of General
Psychiatry.

Of the 4,895 subjects evaluated at the initial assessment, 355 had dementia,
including 200 with Alzheimer's disease. In this analysis, statin use was
associated with a 56-percent reduction in risk of dementia.

During 3-year follow-up, 185 of 3308 at-risk survivors were diagnosed with
dementia, including 104 with Alzheimer's disease. In this analysis, statin
use at the start of the study or at follow-up had no effect on the risk of
dementia or Alzheimer's disease.

One explanation for the different findings could be that after dementia sets
in, patients may simply be less likely to use statins, along with other
drugs.

Studies with sufficient statistical power are needed to assess the effect of
statin use on dementia risk, the authors note. "Until such research is able
to demonstrate more promising results, however, we suggest that costly
randomized trials of statins are premature."

SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005.