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.