a reasonable interpretation of the cv

for what it is worth...

most ALL doctors that I have worked with/for are "assistant or associate
professors" at one UC or another..

it does NOT mean that they are currently and consistently in the
classroom...

it means that they have "privileges" to lecture at the university...perhaps
a one day or weekend seminar..etc...perhaps once a semester..once a
year..and  yes maybe every semester...

obviously this gal does NOT commute back and forth from San Diego to UCLA on
a regular basis...more likely she gave a seminar at UCLA......

again...most doctors worth their salt will attain "assistant professor"
designations to beef up their CVs...

send a class schedule that documents that she teaches EACH semester...EACH
week.....etc etc....

bet you cannot..

actually...in order for her to be concurrently active in all the areas of
her CV....her days would need to be 48 hours long..and  14 in a week....

I distinguished between published sources on adverse effects associated with
statins at 20% (apparently assorted adverse effects) and 15% (apparently
cognitive effects).

Both were published.

The major impact of these numbers ought to be the vast difference between
these reports and what, for example, Pfizer admits to for Lipitor, which is
~ 2%.

When dealing with the largest population of patients of any drug on the
market, the differences are stunning.  These are massive numbers of people
affected.

Or, Fauber quoted a direct source on a different day, who had access to
different information on that day.

Dr. Golomb is widely quoted in many, many articles.  In the case of the
Smart Money Magazine article, I know for a fact that the author traveled to
San Diego in person to interview Dr. Golomb at the end of a very very long
day, and then she traveled to the LA area to interview us, in person.  We
went to dinner together and then to the classic car "cruise" together.

I also know for a fact that the LA Times article that featured my husband's
case was based on several telephone interviews.  The author did not use
material from other sources specific to our case.

These things I know first-hand.  I do not know where Fauber got his quote
from, but it is not impossible that he contacted Dr. Golomb directly.  As
you know, his email address accompanies the article.  If it is important to
you, you really should contact him and ask the question.  And, while you are
at it, you can ask him about all the other people he quoted in his article
and the precise circumstances of the data collection.

Write to him and ask.  I am certain he will be complimented that you read
his article and are interested, unless you couch it in the accusative 'no
no' terms.

That is not my source, that is also a quote from the same articles that
quoted the number.

Again, if you don't like the references a particular author uses, contact
that author.  It is a total waste of everyone's time to ask someone who
merely read the article and found it interesting to 'defend' the source of
the data.  ASK THE AUTHOR.

Arghhhh, you were discussing the source reference in the article, which is
an email.  No one said you had been cc'd on the email.  No one said I had
been cc'd on the email.  No one said you sent the email.

The fact that the source was an email appears in the reference list in the
article.  ASK THE AUTHOR.

The articles make no mention of sci.med.cardiology.  If you are discussing
the information in the articles, it is best not to blur it with a ng
discussion.  The article quotes people whose credentials are at least
sketched within the article.  ng opinions are frequently offered without
specific verified credentials, and often under pseudonyms or email 'handles'
vs names and credentials and work experience/responsibility context.

Dr. Golomb does research for them.  Not only listed in her cv - Google her
rand work.  It is available.  In fact, you can purchase some of the work on
Amazon.com.

Dr. Golomb is an expert on Gulf War Syndrome.  You can google her works in
this area.

YOU made it an issue when you said
"

"

If it weren't an issue, why did you bring it up?

Wow, you must think I am all-powerful.  Do you have some reason to believe
that I review her timecards?  I work full time (and overtime) at a demanding
job and spend hours trying to get treatment for my husband, and trying to
get the word out to others so they might be warned ahead of time not to
ignore the onset of these disabling adverse effects.

Dr. Golomb works long hours, too.  I have some personal data points from
correspondence.  As for monitoring the number of minutes she spends per day
on any particular task, it is absurd for you to even broach the subject.

Sorry that the obvious obviously has escaped you.  There is nothing that
would meet your acceptance criteria, I will leave it that it is my own
conclusion, drawn from many many referrals to her.  For example, when I
contacted NINDS about the need for cross-institute research in statins due
to the cognitive and neurotoxic effects, the NINDS folks said that the
person who is the principal point of contact for all research into
non-cardiac endpoints of statins is Dr. Golomb.  4 other of the NIH
institutes said the same thing.  So have many, many others I have contacted
in my quest to find a treatment to recovery for my husband, including
representatives (who were involved in authoring the joint advisories) from
AHA, ACC, and NHLBI, as well as the FDA and some other researchers.

That won't meet your criteria, by definition, but that is part of the basis
of my conclusion.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<V_CdnazlqdORY5LfRVn-sg@comcast.com>:

Exactly what I pointed out; the 15% refers specifically to **cognitive**
problems; two different things.

I made no allegations, I pointed out that he gave no sources--that is,
it's "poorly sourced."  Nor did I allege that he "heard a lecture"; you
need to distinguish between a question, which I asked, and an
allegation.

The mystery is easily solved; Mercola is an exact re-publication of an
article by Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD from the Weston A. Price
Foundation in the Spring of 2004 (no exact date given); the article was
posted to the Web in April.  So both Mercola (literally quoting) and
Fauber (paraphrasing, primarily) seem to rest on the same original
source.  This is indicated on Mercola's site, in a link which we both
apparently missed.

[...]

My point is that he never indicated the source or the nature of the
source.  I said that quite plainly and there should be no confusion.

Primarily because this particular discussion has been about your source
for the 15% figure you continue to use.  I'm still hoping someone will
find a better source than a personal email referred to by a third party.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I haven't sent you or anyone else an email on this subject.

I am purely trying to establish what was actually said and written;
there is a substantive and substantial difference between "[s]ide
effects [that] included lost memory", "some side effects," "some
cognitive side effects", and "cognitive damage," all terms that have
been used in this thread and in the articles.

My point exactly.

I know what RAND is, since I applied there when I was about to leave
graduate school; I'm not convinced that it has "impeccable" credentials
but over the years it has been very good in most areas.  Do they do
medical research?  What I've familiar with has been on social issues
like crime or on defense and security issues.

RAND was founded by the military, and has always been heavily involved
in defense and security issues; later they added domestic issues to
their work.  Their research in the area of health seems to be directed
toward public health matters such as [street or illegal] drug policy.

"Areas of Research: Child policy, civil and criminal justice, education,
environment and energy, health, international policy, labor markets,
national security, population and regional studies, science and
technology, social welfare and transportation, biological, agricultural
and physical sciences, communications and information, economic issues,
foreign relations, labor and human resource development, regional
studies, social issues."
http://www.nira.go.jp/ice/nwdtt/dat/1306.html

Her CV lists her as "Health Consultant, RAND: Aug 1996 -".

Her CV has never been an issue, so you can stop repeating that.

Note that earlier I had quoted two of those, above.

So just how much time does she spend at each, considering that two are
in San Diego, one in midtown LA, and one in Santa Monica?

You didn't answer the actual question:  where is evidence that she is
the "premier research authority on statins in the world"?

Yes, at http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

The article dated March 27, 2004 by John Fauber, "Doubts raised over drugs
for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost memory in some patients",
states
""If you believe the clinical trial data, the problems occur at very modest
rates," said Beatrice Golomb, an assistant professor of family medicine at
the University of California, San Diego, who is conducting two studies on
statin side effects.
Those trials generally report side effects in less than 1% to 2% of
patients. And many of those complications are minor and disappear if the
drug is discontinued or the dose lowered.

But, "there are clinicians whose personal experience is substantially
different than what is reported in the trials," Golomb said.

She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or more
of patients encounter some side effects."

You have made unsubstantiated allegations against Fauber here, stating with
no support that his article is "poorly sourced" and allegeing he "heard a
lecture"?  First, I suggest you support your argument, second, I suggest you
take it up with Farber and the Milwaukee Journal Sentinal.  It makes no
sense that you are complaining about this to me.

That would be a very neat trick, because Fauber's article is dated March 27,
2004, yet the Mercola article you are almost certain he based the quote upon
is dated FOUR MONTHS LATER, July 21, 2004.

If Fauber got the information from Mercola, maybe he has some hot tips on
next week's stock market, too!  Please be certain you ask and share them
with us, when you take him to task about quoting without attribution from a
Mercola article that was not published until four months after Fauber's
article.

He also quotes without using the word "interview" the following:

- Jeff Bryden, local man paralyzed by Lipitor
-  Dr. Sidney Wolfe of the advocacy group Public Citizen
-  Wendy Peltier, the associate professor of neurology at the Medical
College who diagnosed Bryden, said she and other specialists at the college
have seen between 30 and 50 patients with statin-related muscle problems in
the past few years.
- Duane Graveline, a retired doctor and astronaut, who suffered memory
problems: "the memory problem was so bad that he wrote a book about it:
"Lipitor, Thief of Memory,""
- Matthew Muldoon, an associate professor of medicine at the University of
Pittsburgh School of Medicine, who said, "In memory tests and a test
involving a complex maze, the statin users did not perform as well as those
on the placebo. The difference was subtle but significant," and "We are
obligated to do more extensive research because we are asking millions of
people to take these drugs for the rest of their lives."
- Parks, of the FDA, who said "the agency is aware of reports of cognitive
problems among statin users and is monitoring the situation"  also about
Parks: "The FDA is looking into the status of Crestor and hopes to respond
within 180 days, said Mary Parks, a physician and deputy director of the
FDA's metabolic and endocrine drug products division."

NOTE to Don: Why haven't you questioned this?  Why is Mary Parks affirming
that the FDA is tracking statin cognitive problems from the "metabolic and
endocrine drug products division"?  Why isn't NINDS (National Institutes of
Health's National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS))
involved?

You have the quotes in context in this email (previously you had the quotes
in context at their respective URLs) - you can now make the determination
from the available information if they were the same problem or slightly
different problems.  Of course, things change quickly, and you are
attempting to make precise decisions about quotes in popular media that were
taken at different points in time, and you are making absolutely no mention
that the information available at the time to make the determination may be
different at different times.  But that is your choice.

Also, you are setting another acceptance criteria - "even if the numbers
were acceptable at face value"  - since you set the bar, you are the only
one who can determine if someone has cleared your bar - that is totally
within your control.  It is, also, within the control of each of us readers
to make that determination for ourselves, so you needn't feel compelled to
share your threshold for accepting at face value - we each have our own.
(and we would also be judging your criteria - at face value or not, as we
wish).

You can find things to be likely or unlikely, again that is your personal
set of acceptance criteria.

The NIH values Dr. Golomb's research, and has awarded her the only
multi-year study of non-cardiac endpoints of statins that I am aware of.
The popular press unerringly seeks her out for any statin adverse effects
information.  In case you were unfamiliar with it, RAND, where she also does
research, is a think-tank that has impeccable credentials for world-class
research.

Her CV is available for anyone to review at:
http://medicine.ucsd.edu/faculty/golomb/

Note her current positions include:
a.. Assistant Professor of Medicine, U.C. San Diego April 1998-
Division of General Internal Medicine

a.. Staff Physician, San Diego VA Medical Center Aug 1, 1996 -
Division of General Internal Medicine

a.. Research Associate Professor, Dept. of Psychology, USC: Oct 1998-
Social Science Research Institute
University of Southern California

a.. Health Consultant, RAND: Aug 1996 -

Get that?  She is holding all these jobs simultaneously.  I don't know about
you, but it makes me think about myself, "What have YOU done lately?"

There are many references to statin adverse effects now, far more than the 2
that existed in print when my husband's disabling constellation of
conditions were first determined to from Lipitor, and that all statins had
such advese effects.

Yes, Mercola does mention at
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/statin_drugs.htm in his article "The
Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medication, Part I, By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig,
PhD" - This, by the way, can be reached from the TOC of his July 21, 2004
Issue #552  http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/index.htm
The article mentions the different statin drugs, how cholesterol is used in
the body, then:

MUSCLE PAIN AND WEAKNESS (from statin drugs).

excerpt: "The most common side effect is muscle pain and weakness, a
condition called rhabdomyolysis, most likely due to the depletion of Co-Q10,
a nutrient that supports muscle function. Dr. Beatrice Golomb of San Diego,
California is currently conducting a series of studies on statin side
effects. The industry insists that only 2-3 percent of patients get muscle
aches and cramps but in one study, Golomb found that 98 percent of patients
taking Lipitor and one-third of the patients taking Mevachor (a lower-dose
statin) suffered from muscle problems.3"

Mercola at http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/24/statin_drugs.htm in his
article "The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medication, Part II, By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig,
PhD" it mentions:

NEUROPATHY (from statin drugs)

excerpt: "According to the research of Dr. Golomb, nerve problems are a
common side effect from statin use; patients who use statins for two or more
years are at a four to 14-fold increased risk of developing idiopathic
polyneuropathy compared to controls.11 She reports that in many cases,
patients told her they had complained to their doctors about neurological
problems, only to be assured that their symptoms could not be related to
cholesterol-lowering medications.
The damage is often irreversible. People who take large doses for a long
time may be left with permanent nerve damage, even after they stop taking
the drug."

Note it then mentions the too common problem of elderly hitting the gas
rather than the brake and causing damage or mayhem, and relates it to
peripheral neuropathy which makes it difficult for the person with
neuropathy to detect the feeling of the pedal beneath his or her foot.

HEART FAILURE (from statin drugs)

excerpt: "Cardiologist Peter Langsjoen studied 20 patients with completely
normal heart function. After six months on a low dose of 20 mg of Lipitor a
day, two-thirds of the patients had abnormalities in the heart's filling
phase, when the muscle fills with blood. According to Langsjoen, this
malfunction is due to Co-Q10 depletion.
Without Co-Q10, the cell's mitochondria are inhibited from producing energy,
leading to muscle pain and weakness. The heart is especially susceptible
because it uses so much energy.14

Co-Q10 depletion becomes more and more of a problem as the pharmaceutical
industry encourages doctors to lower cholesterol levels in their patients by
greater and greater amounts. Fifteen animal studies in six different animal
species have documented statin-induced Co-Q10 depletion leading to decreased
ATP production, increased injury from heart failure, skeletal muscle injury
and increased mortality. Of the nine controlled trials on statin-induced
Co-Q10 depletion in humans, eight showed significant Co-Q10 depletion
leading to decline in left ventricular function and biochemical
imbalances.15

Yet virtually all patients with heart failure are put on statin drugs, even
if their cholesterol is already low. Of interest is a recent study
indicating that patients with chronic heart failure benefit from having high
levels of cholesterol rather than low. Researchers in Hull, UK followed 114
heart failure patients for at least 12 months.16 Survival was 78 percent at
12 months and 56 percent at 36 months.

They found that for every point of decrease in serum cholesterol, there was
a 36 percent increase in the risk of death within three years. "

DIZZINESS  (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"According to Dr. Golumb, who notes that dizziness is a common adverse
effect, the elderly may be particularly sensitive to drops in blood
pressure.18"

COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients develop some
cognitive side effects.22 "

CANCER (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"In every study with rodents to date, statins have caused cancer.25 Why have
we not seen such a dramatic correlation in human studies? Because cancer
takes a long time to develop and most of the statin trials do not go on
longer than two or three years. Still, in one trial, the CARE trial, breast
cancer rates of those taking a statin went up 1500 percent.26 "

PANCREATIC ROT (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"The medical literature contains several reports of pancreatitis in patients
taking statins. "

DEPRESSION (from statin drugs) includes the excerpted quote,

"Numerous studies have linked low cholesterol with depression. One of the
most recent found that women with low cholesterol are twice as likely to
suffer from depression and anxiety. Researchers from Duke University Medical
Center carried out personality trait measurements on 121 young women aged 18
to 27.30 They found that 39 percent of the women with low cholesterol levels
scored high on personality traits that signaled proneness to depression,
compared to 19 percent of women with normal or high levels of cholesterol. "

The article for the rest of part II and part III goes on to identify how the
results of various drug trials fail to make the case for statins to be
prescribed so widely:

"Recently published studies do not provide any more justification for the
current campaign to put as many people as possible on statin drugs."

Mercola in the References, at
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/21/statin_drugs_ref.htm , provides the
reference from #22, Dr. Golomb's 15% quote in the COGNITIVE IMPAIRMENT
section, as:

"22. Email communication, Beatrice Golomb, July 10, 2003."

The Mercola article is a quote of the article entitled, "The Weston A. Price
Foundation, "The Dangers of Statin Drugs--What you Haven't Been Told About
Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines"  By Sally Fallon and Mary G. Enig, PhD
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html

This, too, addresses a full suite of statin adverse effects, and in one
category of such adverse effects it says:

"Cognitive Impairment
The November 2003 issue of Smart Money19 describes the case of Mike Hope,
owner of a successful ophthalmologic supply company: "There's an awkward
silence when you ask Mike Hope his age. He doesn't change the subject or
stammer, or make a silly joke about how he stopped counting at 21. He simply
doesn't remember. Ten seconds pass. Then 20. Finally an answer comes to him.
'I'm 56,' he says. Close, but not quite. 'I will be 56 this year.' Later, if
you happen to ask him about the book he's reading, you'll hit another
roadblock. He can't recall the title, the author or the plot." Statin use
since 1998 has caused his speech and memory to fade. He was forced to close
his business and went on Social Security 10 years early. Things improved
when he discontinued Lipitor in 2002, but he is far from complete
recovery-he still cannot sustain a conversation. What Lipitor did was turn
Mike Hope into an old man when he was in the prime of life.

Cases like Mike's have shown up in the medical literature as well. An
article in Pharmacotherapy, December 2003, for example, reports two cases of
cognitive impairment associated with Lipitor and Zocor.20 Both patients
suffered progressive cognitive decline that reversed completely within a
month after discontinuation of the statins. A study conducted at the
University of Pittsburgh showed that patients treated with statins for six
months compared poorly with patients on a placebo in solving complex mazes,
psychomotor skills and memory tests.21

Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients develop some
cognitive side effects.22 The most harrowing involve global transient
amnesia-complete memory loss for a brief or lengthy period-described by
former astronaut Duane Graveline in his book Lipitor: Thief of Memory.23
Sufferers report baffling incidents involving complete loss of
memory-arriving at a store and not remembering why they are there, unable to
remember their name or the names of their loved ones, unable to find their
way home in the car. These episodes occur suddenly and disappear just as
suddenly. Graveline points out that we are all at risk when the general
public is taking statins-do you want to be in an airplane when your pilot
develops statin-induced amnesia?

While the pharmaceutical industry denies that statins can cause amnesia,
memory loss has shown up in several statin trials. In a trial involving 2502
subjects, amnesia occurred in 7 receiving Lipitor; amnesia also occurred in
2 of 742 subjects during comparative trials with other statins. In addition,
"abnormal thinking" was reported in 4 of the 2502 clinical trial subjects.24
The total recorded side effects was therefore 0.5 percent; a figure that
likely under-represents the true frequency since memory loss was not
specifically studied in these trials. "

As with the Mercola site, the
http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/statin.html  lists the footnote
#22 as "22. Email communication, Beatrice Golomb, July 10, 2003."  (And Dr.
Graveline's book can now be purchased at http://www.spacedoc.net, BTW)

Again, if you have arguments about what Fauber "proves" address them to
Fauber.

As to what my analysis and interpretation of the article might be, it will
most certainly not be the same as yours.  At the very least, our educational
backgrounds and experience with statin adverse effects differ greatly.

For you to expect that your interpretation and analysis must be the same as
mine is a bit sad.  You owe it to yourself to draw your own conclusions.
Believe me when I say that I make determinations, interpretations and
analysis without concern about "but what would Don think of this?"  I can
respect you for calling into question some things, and I can agree that
every article I read about statin side effects is far too superficial to
help the millions who may be suffering harm right now, and I can share your
frustration that the studies are not sufficiently illuminating about the
side-effects, but my conclusions will often vary from yours - almost
certainly.

I think that is a healthy situation, and hope you do, too!

Now, an assignment for someone: Grab all the percentages mentioned in all
the quotes and make up some sort of table: Adverse effect, reported %age,
reporter (i.e., quoted expert), date of report.  That might be a useful and
illuminating exercise, but one for which I don't have the time this evening.

Then, please share it with us.  If it is useful, I may add it to the Statin
Adverse Effects FAQ!

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<ouqdnV_IyKZbNpPfRVn-gg@comcast.com>:

Well, you actually have used the 15% more than once over the past year
or so.

No, you have said (and Mercola says) the 15% you attribute to Golomb
refers to cognitive disability; the 20%, equally poorly sourced (was
Fauber quoting something Golomb wrote, was he reporting an interview,
had he heard a lecture, was it really what she said?), says, as you
quoted above, "encounter **some* side effects."

Fauber seems to be relying on Mercola almost totally in that section
although, as I quoted, Mercola actually wrote that Golomb said, "15
percent of statin patients develop some **cognitive** side effects." [My
emphasis]  In that part of his article Fauber seems to be paraphrasing
and quoting Mercola (without attribution, a journalistic no-no).

Nowhere does Fauber say his report was based on an interview, either by
him or by a different interviewer.  He simply begins quoting Golomb
without further introduction.  He almost certain owes that part of the
article to Mercola's article.

[...]

ISTM it's important to realize that the 20% and the 15% are not about
the same problem, even if the numbers were acceptable at face value.

Some source to support your acclaim for her as "premier research
authority on statins in the world"?  I find that a little unlikely for
an Assistant Professor of Medicine and a Research Associate in
Psychology, both beginning in 1998.

But that is about a different kind and level of effects than the 15% you
have consistently used.

My questions are not about what the reporter wrote but about, first,
what he proves (rather little, IMO, given the lack of specific sourcing)
and, second, about your analysis and interpretation of the article.

Sorry, I understated from memory  - It was from an article I read in March
of 2004, and the number was actually TWENTY PERCENT.

The quote:

"She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or
more of patients encounter some side effects."

http://www.jsonline.com/alive/news/mar04/217976.asp

"Doubts raised over drugs for cholesterol - Side effects have included lost
memory in some patients" by John Fauber, March 27, 2004 - Milwaukee Journal
Sentinel JSOnline.

The context:

A local man who was overcome by Lipitor adverse effects.

Informative interview with Dr. Golomb, including:

"If you believe the clinical trial data, the problems occur at very

modest rates," said Beatrice Golomb, an assistant professor of family

medicine at the University of California, San Diego, who is

conducting two studies on statin side effects.

Those trials generally report side effects in less than 1% to 2% of

patients. And many of those complications are minor and disappear if

the drug is discontinued or the dose lowered.

But, "there are clinicians whose personal experience is substantially

different than what is reported in the trials," Golomb said.

She said that based on her experience and that of other doctors, 20% or

more of patients encounter some side effects."

As you will no doubt recall, this information is always followed by an
hysterical need by some to somehow minimize that 20% number because of an
overwhelming need for denial.

Usually they start by demanding to know 20% of what population, and the
information in the quote is what is available.  So, they then begin
fantasizing about wierd populations that would disprove the number.

Considering that Dr. Golomb is the premier research authority on statins in
the world, and also is independent of pharm co funding and has absolutely no
reason to 'spin' anything, I take her at her word.  Given that 100% of the
statin takers in my family have been drastically disabled for a number of
years due to Lipitor, the number does not surprise me in the least, nor does
it give me any reason to doubt it.

Given the denial rampant in the ng and the country, and the constan
consistently repetitive stories of people who have been diagnosed with
maladies like Alzheimer's that cannot improve, who were told by doctors that
the statins could not possibly be involved, and who, upon halting the
statins slowly did improve, thereby ruling out the diagnosis, the fact that
the higher representation of adverse effects is higher is obvious.

Sorry, I should have checked before posting - 20%  is the number that
appears in the article.

If you have further questions about what may have been left out of the
article I suggest you contact the reporter.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<OZydnRY_JbN46pDfRVn-ow@comcast.com>:

[Re study purported to demonstrate statin-caused cognitive damage]

Sharon, you continue to use that 15% figure (though now you have
softened it to "5% to 15%"; what is the basis for that change?).  I
directed you to the Mercola page (which you said you hadn't known before
though ISTR you had cited it yourself somewhat earlier)*.

On January 4 of this year I wrote:

[Start]
To restate my point, it is not at all clear what Dr. Golomb's 15% figure
is measuring.  I didn't find it in reports of her publications or
presentations I found in Google, and the only clear statement of that
figure is "Dr. Golomb has found that 15 percent of statin patients
develop some cognitive side effects.{22}" contained in a web page I
believe you are familiar with, since it discusses your husband's case:
http://www.mercola.com/2004/jul/24/statin_drugs.htm.

Reference 22 says in its entirety "22. Email communication, Beatrice
Golomb, July 10, 2003."
[End]

In short, that is still  the only source I have been able to find for
that 15% claim, which we had discussed nearly a year earlier than my
January post.  Perhaps you have a documented source for that figure?

It seems possible that Dr. Golomb has not used the figure publicly, and
an email cannot be challenged or verified or interpreted without access
to the text and the context; if you know a published source for the 15%
please cite it or rephrase your position.

Well, they did say it wasn't worth spending more money on unless someone can
get better results first:

"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."

BTW, one of the authors of this study also wrote this:

Sparks DL, Lopez J, Connor D, Sabbagh M, Seward J,
Browne P; Alzheimer's Disease Cholesterol-Lowering
Treatment Team;
J Mol Neurosci. 2003;20(3):407-10.;
"A position paper: based on observational data
indicating an increased rate of altered blood chemistry
requiring withdrawal from the Alzheimer's Disease
Cholesterol-Lowering Treatment Trial (ADCLT);" Excerpt
froom abstract: "There was no apparent correlation
between the occurrence of withdrawal-AE incidence and
lower body mass among the female AD trial subjects and,
therefore, probably was not a dose-related resultant.
This might indicate that cognitively intact elderly
women at risk for heart disease and those with
clinically documented AD should not be presumed to be
pharmocodynamically equivalent."

Also, it still raises the questions:

What protocol did they employ to determine that there were no instances of
statin cognitive damage?

And, given that:
1) 5% to 15% of statin users expected to have
significant cognitive adverse effects (per Dr. Goloob
interviews), and

2) nearly 100% expected to have mild cognitive adverse
effects (per Dr. Muldoons studies), and

3) with the reports that adverse effects are more
likely to occur in the elderly (per an associate in
this study, DL Sparks,citation above), and

4) the findings that patients with Alz may be
particularly susceptible to statins (per Algotsson A,
Winblad B, citation below),

to what did they attribute the lack of statin cognitive
adverse effects detected?  Was the sample too small
(i.e., 6 statin users with dementia in Wave 1 and 8 in
Wave 2)?

Algotsson A, Winblad B.
Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord. 2004;17(3):109-16. Epub
2004 Jan 20.
"Patients with Alzheimer's disease may be particularly
susceptible to adverse effects of statins."
Excerpt from abstract: "They generally are well
tolerated, but some adverse effects, probably due to
antiproliferative and proapoptotic properties of the
statins, are matters of concern. AD patients may be
extrasusceptible to adverse effects of statins due to
preexisting aberrations in signal transduction and
energy metabolism in the neurons and a perturbed
cholesterol metabolism in the brain."

The study you quoted above, however, suggests that they could not reach a
conclusion either way.

Bill

That hope is what this cruel hucksterism was based upon.  Immediately upon
the appearance of several popular media articles on statin causing
devastating cognitive damage, the whisper campaign started.  No less than 10
journal articles appeared asking the question, could statins prevent
Alzheimer's?

That hope was what caused massive "amnesia" among doctors who had evidence
of cognitive damage drowned out by the hype and false promise.

How many statin patients developed severe cognitive damage during that
period, while doctors were convinced to look the other way?   I know several
personally.

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.