Re: Statins do NOT protect against Azlheimer's
You are accessing this site in a read-only mode. For full access to all member benefits, including message posting, please login or register. Registration is completely free, simple, and takes only a few seconds.
Login |
Free MedKB.com registration |
Whole discussion thread
The message you are replying to and its parents are listed in the reverse order with the most recent posts first. This might not be the whole discussion thread. To read all the messages in this thread please click here.
Re: Statins do NOT protect against Azlheimer's
| Don Kirkman | 13 Feb 2005 00:43 |
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]
>Also, it still raises the questions:
>What protocol did they employ to determine that there were no instances of >statin cognitive damage? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >significant cognitive adverse effects (per Dr. Goloob >interviews), and 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.
 Signature Don "I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with senses, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use. --Galileo Galilei
|
| Sharon Hope | 12 Feb 2005 03:28 |
>>> Another misleading subject line..... >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > The study you quoted above, however, suggests that they could not reach a > conclusion either way. 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."
> Bill >>> L. [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] >>>> >>>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005. |
| Bill | 11 Feb 2005 07:04 |
>> Another misleading subject line..... >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > period, while doctors were convinced to look the other way? I know several > personally. The study you quoted above, however, suggests that they could not reach a conclusion either way.
Bill
>> L. >> [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >>> >>> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005. |
| Sharon Hope | 11 Feb 2005 04:33 |
> Another misleading subject line..... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Who wouldn't hope that there *might* be some benefit from statins against > this most debilitating disease, alzheimers? 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.
> L. > [quoted text clipped - 74 lines] >> >> SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005. |
| listener | 11 Feb 2005 03:08 |
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 [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] > > SOURCE: Archives of General Psychiatry, February 2005. |
| Sharon Hope | 11 Feb 2005 02:58 |
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.
|
Quick links:
|
|
|