 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / September 2004Pravachol verses Lipitor ?
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 ? > 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 ? 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, [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > from an epidemiology group working out of the University of British > Columbia in Canada. They take no industry funding. 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 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. > 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. 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 >Zee 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. > >Zee > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 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. You still haven't figured out what I do for a living eh George? Hint: it involves being on the net all day. Zee > Trouble is you might scare some poor soul into believing you are right > and that in turn might cost them years of their life. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > one where other people mught not suffer due to your obsession prone > personality. George Have just noticed something so startling in your post. {Had a few moments while I waited for files to download...}. You see a general practitioner "who works out a lot and has a backround {sic} in sports medicine...".... To advice you on what cholesterol lowering med to use? To advice you on your cardiovascular care? Zee 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 > > Zee your point of view is so polluted by your obsession with statins > that it (your point of view) is meaningless. > George, > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > have lost a child to a drunk driving murderer, because they are "polluted by > their obsession"? 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. > What kind of politically incorrect prejudice permits you to disparage people > who have become disabled by a particular specific situation - STATIN ADVERSE [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > about first-hand experience of being disabled by statin adverse effects > causes them to be less deserving of free speech, in your opinion? 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 Bigotry against the handicapped is unbecoming. Your use of analogy, and accusations of bigotry, are totally erroneous and unwarranted, respectively. Steve  SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > >Zee > > > > Zee your point of view is so polluted by your obsession with statins > > that it (your point of view) is meaningless. Exactly what I have done: "...free to recommend that folks seek professional opinions, and become educated enough to question those opinions rationally,..." Zee > > George, > > [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > > > Zee your point of view is so polluted by your obsession with statins > > > that it (your point of view) is meaningless. > Exactly what I have done: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Zee 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 SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >Steve Looks like our commentary on this woman's mania has had quite a sobering effect. Endless cut and paste jobs to make her ludicrous point. I just wish she had a life instead of using it to pollute this group. No need to post anyting else Zee. We all know by now, statins are bad, you nearly died from them, doctors are bad, drug companies are bad. You live where it's cold. 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" >From an press release announcing this: 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." > > Exactly what I have done: > > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > Steve > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Zee 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 SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 <previous posts snipped; they are available via google.com > > Steve > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Again, for every person who cannot tolerate statins, there are literally > tens of thousands who can, do and benefit from statins. LOL. I am under no obligation to represent pharma. They are well looked after by those denizens of Goebbel's profession whom they employ. I am in most instances responding to query from those who have already crossed over that thin line. They are experiencing symptoms that might be attributed to statins. No-one apparently has told them. They have not done their homework, granted. (No point rubbing their faces in it here Steve). And if statins work the way it is said they do, that may be damage that is not recoverable. (Is MS or AlS damage 'recoverable?') That is why it is so important not to take them if you don't need to; to take as little a dose as possible if you do (varying per individual need of course) and to use them for as short a time as possible. Yes take all this information, and whatever else you find, and go talk to your doctor. And if he or she won't find another. Know that the liver enzyme tests aren't going to do it, know that ignoring the symptoms and tolerating for the sake of risk/benefit may not be very wise in light of rhabdomyolysis. Bang it's there. Too late. If people can tolerate them and benefit and *truly* need them then well and good. Why is it a problem that I provide another side of the story with which to weigh a decision? You have it. Obviously the person posting here saying "could?" does not. I have no problem with anyone using statins. I have a problem with suppression of information. Deliberate suppression. And as you must acknowledge Steve I am not alone in thinking that is wrong, must and will change. Then, I think, there will be fewer problem drugs like statins. Who is to say what difficuties and harm might have been avoided if the runaway train that is the pharmaceutical business had been throttled back or controlled some time go, as is being done now. I didn't write Rennie's editorial. I just posted it. Those damning words are his. Zee > Steve > -- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > > <previous posts snipped; they are available via google.com > > > Steve > > > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > LOL. I am under no obligation to represent pharma. You claimed to be using this forum to satisfy the public's right to know. That knowledge includes the good, as well as the bad, about the pharmaceutical industry. > They are well looked > after by those denizens of Goebbel's profession whom they employ. Your bias is showing. The public's right to know should be from balanced sources, not from biased sources. Otherwise, you have become what you are claiming to contradict. > I am > in most instances responding to query from those who have already > crossed over that thin line. You would have absolutely no way of knowing that without examining them, having complete medical histories from them, and being a qualified health care professional. > They are experiencing symptoms that might > be attributed to statins. Or might not. > No-one apparently has told them. Before or after the fact of their symptoms? > They have > not done their homework, granted. (No point rubbing their faces in it > here Steve). That's the *whole* point, Zee. A while back I posted something about the inherent stupidity of someone coming to this newsgroup and asking for medical advice. It is equally stupid to not have asked questions when the medication was being prescribed, and/or to not have read the material that, by law, comes with the medication. Your brief is to scare away the 99.03% of people who will be able to take a statin drug without side effects because of the remaining .07%, some fraction of them will have not been properly informed of the side effects, the contraindications, the drug interactions, and the need for testing to monitor for those side effects. That failure to inform on the part of the doctor would be malpractice, the failure to inform oneself (or at least ask the questions) is their own failure. The failure to be properly diagnosed when suffering what could be a statin induced side effect (as, for example, detailed above by Cappy), is again medical malpractice. > And if statins work the way it is said they do, that may > be damage that is not recoverable. (Is MS or AlS damage 'recoverable?') [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > tolerating for the sake of risk/benefit may not be very wise in light > of rhabdomyolysis. Bang it's there. Too late. From your typical posts, no one would take away the information that you people should take them if they need to. Apparently, there is some balance in your point of view that has come out now that you've responded to this series of posts. > If people can tolerate them and benefit and *truly* need them then well > and good. Why is it a problem that I provide another side of the story > with which to weigh a decision? You have it. Obviously the person > posting here saying "could?" does not. It is a problem because you typically present only one side, the side that is relevent for less than .1% of those who take statins. As noted above, this is the first post from you that I can recall you stating that people who need statins should take them. > I have no problem with anyone using statins. I have a problem with > suppression of information. Deliberate suppression. But the suppression of information is in your imagination. Neither doctors nor the pharmaceutical industries suppress the drug interactions, the contraindications, the potential side effects and the need for constant blood tests to monitor various functions when taking statins. Unless you consider malpractice on the part of the prescribing doctor to be "suppression" of information. > And as you must > acknowledge Steve I am not alone in thinking that is wrong, must and [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I didn't write Rennie's editorial. I just posted it. Those damning > words are his. Your failure to appreciate that he has at least as big an axe to grind as the one that you imagine is wielded by the pharmaceutical is part of the problem. > Zee Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >> > > Steve >> > > [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] >> > Steve Haven't we been here before? I'm having deja vu all over again..... Frankly, I've given up trying to make similar points. Between the religious nutcakes, the pharmaphobes, and the occasional cardiology- related question it's a real chore gleaning anything of value here anymore. L. > >> > > Steve > >> > > [quoted text clipped - 135 lines] > > L. Other than the Chung bashing posts most others here are cardiology related. Try making a contribution instead of always looking to "glean". Zee The people I am responding to have said they are taking statins and have symptoms. Some reading the newsgroup in the last couple days didn't ask on group but have contacted me privately because, as one said, "didn't want to contend with being called an idiot." I don't think people should take statins but if *they* think they should then that's their choice. The medical journals and media are filled with this topic. Pharma has suppressed negative information on this class of drugs and others most notably SSRIs. There are law suits both sides of the Atlantic on this very issue. Governments in Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe and Britain are earnestly looking at change. Medical schools and medical academics are lobbying for change. It is not only Rennie, or Angel, or Mansfield or Smith. It is endemic, both the problem, and the demand for solution. Do you know what you are putting in your mouth? If you are taking a statin no you do not. You haven't been given all the information. No matter how hard you try or how responsible you are you can't know it because it was not made publicly available or, in some cases, and this I have been told by credible sources is the case for statins, was not even looked at. I am well aware there are people here walking a thin line. I care about each one of the regular posters. Each one. I am a writer by nature and profession and I flesh you out. You are real walking talking living characters in my imagination. (Ask Bob if this is not possible and so). I know you and I care about you and would not frighten any one of you. It is the information that is frightening. I cannot change that. I cannot change that Steve. The alternative is so much more so. Zee > Your brief is to scare away the 99.03% of people who will be able to take > a > statin drug without side effects because of the remaining .07%, ... Can you elaborate on the remaining .90% of people >>Steve >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 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) Still trying to... Right. There is no treatment, there is no cure and there is no recovery, beyond what nature will do on its own and rehabilitation to allow one to better function and that limited to how damaged one has been. Some severely injured statin users are being misdiagnosed with Parkinson's, ALS, MS and profound mulitple strokes, until they get into see one of the four or five doctors in the U.S. who know what it is (Phillips at Scripps Mercy San Diego being one). There is no recovery for any of those either, if we mean--back to the way they were. It is a very hard thing to bear. It was avoidable. And you know what? Each and every one of those people thought they had to take the drug. The medical profession who get their drugs continuing education from pharma (the same pharma Rennie decries) told them so. The ads told them so: They had a serious, serious health problem. Name it there is someone on this newsgroup who represents each one of those serious, serious problems and is taking a statin putting up with side effect because they "have to take it." I can't begin to fathom what a statin drug will do to a heart already damaged. To one who has already had bypass surgery. How many I wonder do not recognize the symptoms they are experiencing are likely from statins not from their original health "problem". There is no recovery for the profound damage to the myelin sheath which will happen to all who take statins eventually if the coenzyme q10 theory of statin damage is correct. If there was people with MS would have 'recovered' by now from their nerve damage. It is similar if not identical. Zee >>>Steve >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > 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. It's an interesting analogy. In this case, there is also somebody else firing bullets at you in the form of heart attacts. Most of the time when you pull the trigger on your gun nothing happens. Some of the time when you pull the trigger a shield goes up and saves you from being shot by the other guy. Sometimes you are shot by the outsider anyway. And, yes, every once in a while you shoot yourself. But, at the end of the day, there is no doubt that for some groups of people statins are more helpful than harmful. There is also no doubt that some people should not get statins. The rational discussion should be which group is which and what are the side effects, how should they be recognized, delt with, etc. Bill > 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 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Cappy > (Still trying to out run the death grip clutches of Statin therapy) >>>Steve >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Cappy > (Still trying to out run the death grip clutches of Statin therapy) Could you elaborate on what those death grip clutches are and how you know they are attribuatibe to statins. Perhaps someone here can help you. Bill >>>>Steve >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Bill Hi Bill (ok the "death grip" was a bit much, at least for me anyway). It's a very long story but here's the short of it. Heart attack 1998, put on usual drug regime, ace, beta, aspirin, statin. Stent fitted LAD 1999. I was 49 years old. Multiple trips to ER complaining about everything from not feeling well to aches and pains in what felt like every muscle in my body had cramped. Incredible fatigue and shortness of breath, low exercise tolerance, dizziness. Sent home from ER every time after test revealed not having heart attack. My own doctor put it down to stress and anxiety, who was I to disagree? Woke up one morning with a rash and hives from the top of my head to the soles of my feet, my face had swelled and my eye's closed up, couldn't get my glasses on, calf muscles cramping and bad back ache and throat closing up. ER treated me with Steroids and some other drug (can't remember the name) made me very ill, short stay in hospital. Referred to Immunologist who suspected ACE but later confirmed Statin as the problem (some sort of blood test I think). He stopped Statin. Within a short period of time I started to feel a little better and improved as time went by. The rash and hives took approx 6 months to go away. Not once during this 3 year period did anyone alter or change any of my drugs until the rash appeared. What I am left with now is: Fits of tiredness, Calf muscles cramping with the slightest stretching and painful when walking, Back pain, can be severe at times, (statin's or coincidence?) Anxiety (probably due to not being able to work) I am also told that I repeat myself quite often, I am also told that I repeat myself quite often, lol I have just turned 55 and a CABG last year has left me feeling a lot better and if it was not for the above I reckon I could climb Everest, (well maybe not Everest). Drugs at the moment: Beta 25mg twice a day Plavix 75mg / day Nexium (gastro) Vioxx prn Cappy Cappy Damn there I go again..... As the sun pulls away from the shore and the boat sinks slowly in the east. http://www.healthyskepticism.org/index.htm Zee > What I am left with now is: > Fits of tiredness, > Calf muscles cramping with the slightest stretching and painful when [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > As the sun pulls away from the shore and the boat sinks slowly in the east. >>>>>Steve >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > As the sun pulls away from the shore and the boat sinks slowly in the east. OK. Death grip does seem a little strong, but it does seem like you may have had some kind of reaction. Some Drs. do not see the problems early enough, as may be the situation in your case. As to the present situation, one red flag is the Vioxx. There was a recent study showing people on Vioxx are more likely to have a heart attack than those on Celebrex and I don't see any advantage to it vs. Celebrex. So you might wish to talk to your Dr. about that. Have you tried physical therapy the leg? On the very very long shot that it has something to do with low potassium levels, you might try eating a couple of bananas and see if that helps. Of course there are lots of possibilities for tiredness including lack of sleep and sleep apena. The two common therapies for anxiety are talk therapy and drugs. From what I've read, they work best in combination. Maybe someone else has more suggestions. Bill - not a Dr. >snip> > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Bill - not a Dr. Hi Bill I am convinced that in my case the Doctors didn't pick it up early enough. I am aware of the Vioxx situation and plan on taking it up with my Doc next visit. I think you may have something there with the low potassium level as I remember being treated with it several times during my visits to the hospital, I will try the bananas. Talk therapy for anxiety is a definite yes, just talking to you and Zee has given me a lift, as for drug therapy, I think I will pass. Funny story, as funny stories go, I was in and out of hospital with attacks of A Fib, this went on for a long time (13 trips to hospital)and having home nursing several times as well. My Cardio at the time kept saying to me, "push through these problems", in other words if you get pain when you walk just push through. He (my Cardio) went on holidays and so after one of my A Fib attacks I was referred to his partner who said "I think we should have a look at you" so off to the cath lab I go. The results are in 4 blockages, 2 minor, 1 medium and one bad, unfortunately the bad one is in your Left Main so go home wrap yourself in cotton wool and wait for the surgeon. I often wonder what would have happened if my Doc didn't go on holiday's, probably be pushing up daisy's now. Cheers Cappy Cappy What I had intended to come through for you didn't so I've copied the wdt. http://www.healthyskepticism.org/index.htm Then third down on the left: ADWATCH December 2003 Revised recommendations "Revised recommendations for treatment of reflux esophagitis In response to all the feedback received we have improved our current recommendations for Australia to the following: Please note that these recommendations may not be appropriate in other countries if the relative prices are different and will no longer be appropriate for Australia if the prices change or if new drugs or new evidence justifies changes. For severe reflux esophagitis (grades B, C and D): Recommend lifestyle changes for all patients including elevation of head of bed, no smoking, no heavy alcohol intake. Commence therapy with pantoprazole 40mg (Somac). If symptoms are not controlled try esomeprazole 40mg (Nexium). If symptoms are controlled then try half tablets of pantoprazole 40mg (Somac). If that is effective then try a H2 antagonist such as ranitidine (Multiple brands). For less severe reflux esophagitis (grade A): Recommend lifestyle changes for all patients including elevation of head of bed, no smoking, no heavy alcohol intake. Commence therapy with half pantoprazole 40mg (Somac). If symptoms are not controlled try pantoprazole 40mg and if that is not effective then try esomeprazole 40mg (Nexium). If symptoms are controlled then try half tablets of pantoprazole 40mg (Somac). If that is effective then try then try a H2 antagonist such as ranitidine (Multiple brands) and if that is effective then try lifestyle measures alone." Cappy This is typical statin damage that you are describing and in many if not most so damaged side effects remain up to three years after stopping: myopathy, myositis, respiratory problems, gastrointestinal, gall bladder, pancreatitis etc. You may have been entering rhabdomyolysis if your liver function tests were not good. If you will e-mail me I'll give you the e-mail address for a cardiologist who now exclusively treats statin syndrome and has a regimine he is suggesting for treatment. I don't want to put his personal e-mail address on the web. Try this address for me as despammed is merciless at blocking anything it doesn't like: zwalanga@yahooDOTcom Zee > Cappy > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Zee Thanks Zee, e-mail on it's way. > Cappy > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > gall bladder, pancreatitis etc. You may have been entering > rhabdomyolysis if your liver function tests were not good. Hi Zee It's been around about that time since stopping Statin's and without a doubt I have improved a lot since then, but I feel that this is as good as it is going to get. Cappy >snip< > >>>>Steve > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > As the sun pulls away from the shore and the boat sinks slowly in the east. So the short version is that you following your heart attack, you were treated properly. You appear to be one of the vast minority of people who had an adverse reaction to a statin, and were then subjected to malpractice on the part of the emergency room and your own doctor. In other words, you were warned (or should have been warned, if not, more malpractice) of the side effects of statins, but took the drug anyway because of its potential benefits, as you should have, and were thereafter damaged by idiots. Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing to do with statin therapy. From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in satisfaction of the "public's right to know", such as are being conducted by Zee and Sharon Hope in this forum, should take the form of posting each and every article that tells a horror story about statins, denigrating doctors, and denigrating the pharmaeutical industry in the hopes that people who should be on a statin of some sort will avoid them on the .07% chance that they will have an adverse reaction, and will thereafter encounter medical malpractice. Got it. Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >>>>>>Steve >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 118 lines] > So the short version is that you following your heart attack, you were > treated properly. I was treated with the accepted drug regime at the time yes. You appear to be one of the vast minority of people who > had an adverse reaction to a statin, and were then subjected to malpractice > on the part of the emergency room and your own doctor. Strangely enough I don't feel like I was subjected to malpractice, I just don't believe they considered the statin when making their diagnosis. In other words, you > were warned (or should have been warned, if not, more malpractice) of the > side effects of statins, but took the drug anyway because of its potential > benefits, as you should have, and were thereafter damaged by idiots. Steve, I don't know if you have suffered a heart attack or not but I assure you the last thing on your mind is the possible adverse affects from the drugs prescribed to you, and even if you are in a frame of mind to comprehend what is being offered, you are still going to take them regardless. > Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing to > do with statin therapy. I was told by an Immunologist that it was the Statin that caused the initial reaction and the current symptoms are consistent with statin damage. > From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in satisfaction > of the "public's right to know", such as are being conducted by Zee and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > will have an adverse reaction, and will thereafter encounter medical > malpractice. If the shoe fits..... > Got it. Big time. > Steve >>>>>>>Steve >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 142 lines] > I was told by an Immunologist that it was the Statin that caused the initial > reaction and the current symptoms are consistent with statin damage. Just fyi. "consistent with" means statins have not been ruled out as the cause. Could be, or could not be. And it does appear that if the doctor had caught your symptoms earlier than you may not have had such reactions. In other words, the message should be not that statins are evil, but that they may have side effects and people should be aware of them so they can react in time. Also, they should not be given to low risk groups. Bill >> From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in >> satisfaction [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Steve >>snip> >>I was told by an Immunologist that it was the Statin that caused the initial [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bill Hi Bill You remind me of a rifle I once owned, precision built, and extremely accurate. Cheers Cappy <snip > >>>>>>Steve > >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 126 lines] > Strangely enough I don't feel like I was subjected to malpractice, I > just don't believe they considered the statin when making their diagnosis. Which would *be* malpractice. > In other words, you > > were warned (or should have been warned, if not, more malpractice) of the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to comprehend what is being offered, you are still going to take them > regardless. And, having had three heart attacks, I can assure you that you are wrong. There isn't a drug that can be prescribed for me that I'm not going to discuss with the prescribing doctor thoroughly, and for which I'm not going to demand complete information about. The fact of the matter is that I fired a doctor, while laying in a hospital bed recovering from a heart attack. When another doctor from my cardiology practice came in to see me (hurriedly, I assure you) to find out what the problem was, he was told no uncertain terms to keep that particular doctor away from me, even if it meant having a second doctor from that same practice travel to the hospital just to see me, on pain of the entire practice being told to "take a hike." In short, doctors are not gods. > > Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing to > > do with statin therapy. > I was told by an Immunologist that it was the Statin that caused the > initial reaction and the current symptoms are consistent with statin damage. And you've confirmed this with a second opinion? > > From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in satisfaction > > of the "public's right to know", such as are being conducted by Zee and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > If the shoe fits..... Which is, of course, no answer at all. Or perhaps you agree with their scare tactics. > > Got it. > Big time. > > > > Steve Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 <snip> >>>So the short version is that you following your heart attack, you were >>>treated properly. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Which would *be* malpractice. Possibly, but I am not a lawyer, are you? With the figures you are stating why would they consider statin damage at all. >> In other words, you >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >>>benefits, as you should have, and were thereafter damaged by idiots. No, I took the drug because I was prescribed it >>Steve, I don't know if you have suffered a heart attack or not but I >>assure you the last thing on your mind is the possible adverse affects [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > meant having a second doctor from that same practice travel to the hospital > just to see me, on pain of the entire practice being told to "take a hike." Steve, that is you, not all of us have the education / resources that you have. In the public system we cannot just up and fire the treating doctor, we do not have a choice here. > In short, doctors are not gods. No they are not, but I owe my life to them, how about you. >>>Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > And you've confirmed this with a second opinion? No, why would I. >>>From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Which is, of course, no answer at all. Or perhaps you agree with their > scare tactics. I don't see them as scare tactics Steve, which BTW by the way brings us back a full circle. Imo Zee and Sharon are posting informed information based on personal experience and research, you can choose not to read them of course, as those that do can make up their own minds whether to risk being one of those 0.07% you mentioned. You are campaigning for the good of the majority, well guess what, they don't need it. it's the 0.07% minority that need the help. Cappy >>>Got it. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Steve > <snip> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Which would *be* malpractice. > Possibly, but I am not a lawyer, are you? Yes > With the figures you are stating why would they consider statin damage > at all. Because there *are* potential side effects of the drug, they can be serious, and the symptoms you describe here, if presented to medical personnel, are within the set of symptoms indicative of those side effects. > >> In other words, you > >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > No, I took the drug because I was prescribed it Would you have taken penicillin for the first time, if "prescribed it"? Have you ever had occasion to have an antibiotic prescribed to you? Have you ever been asked whether you are allergic to penicillin? > >>Steve, I don't know if you have suffered a heart attack or not but I > >>assure you the last thing on your mind is the possible adverse affects [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Steve, that is you, not all of us have the education / resources that > you have. Education has nothing to do with it. Drugs *are* drugs. It is essentially unavoidable that they have side effects. Anyone, regardless of experience or education has the capacity to know and understand that they are entitled to ask questions, and entitled to receive answers. > In the public system we cannot just up and fire the treating doctor, we > do not have a choice here. I'm afraid I don't understand precisely what you mean by "the public system." But I cannot conceive that you must tolerate "the" doctor who shows up. If the doctor made a disparaging racial comment, for example, you're telling me that you could not demand a different doctor? > > In short, doctors are not gods. > > No they are not, but I owe my life to them, how about you. Three times over. > >>>Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have nothing > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And you've confirmed this with a second opinion? > No, why would I. To be more certain that the opinion is accurate. > >>>From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in > > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > I don't see them as scare tactics Steve, which BTW by the way brings us > back a full circle. We will have to agree to disagree, then. > Imo Zee and Sharon are posting informed information based on personal > experience and research, you can choose not to read them of course, as > those that do can make up their own minds whether to risk being one of > those 0.07% you mentioned. It's not a question of what I choose. It's a question of what someone showing up in this newsgroup for the first time, seeking information, will choose. Those that read what they write, without understanding that what they write reflects serious bias, can potentially be damaged, or worse, end up dead. > You are campaigning for the good of the majority, well guess what, they > don't need it. I disagree. See above. > it's the 0.07% minority that need the help. But Sharon and Zee aren't directing their "help" to that minority, or at least not with the posts that they write. They are directing them to everyone. And while I don't understand the phenomena, plenty of people come to Usenet newsgroups and will accept what they read there as "gospel", notwithstanding that they don't know squat about the topic or about the posters whom they are reading. If one reads what these two ladies write, one may will simply refuse statin therapy because "statins are bad and cause serious side effects", and the doctors and the pharmaceuticals are conspiring to ignore and/or cover this up. In my opinion, I'm the one helping the minority. I acknowledge that a very small minority will not be able to tolerate statin therapy, but that this minority can avoid serious damage by being educated about statins, by demanding that questions be answered, that recommended periodic testing protocols be followed, and that, if they present symptoms, these symptoms be understood and taken seriously by allegedly competent medical personnel. Frankly, your post indicates that the above paragraph represents an impossibility. I just don't understand why. > Cappy Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >><snip> >> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Yes Then you would know. >>With the figures you are stating why would they consider statin damage >>at all. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Would you have taken penicillin for the first time, if "prescribed it"? Yes of course, why wouldn't I? > Have you ever had occasion to have an antibiotic prescribed to you? Yes, sore throat comes to mind. Have > you ever been asked whether you are allergic to penicillin? No, I don't remember ever having penicillin. >>>>Steve, I don't know if you have suffered a heart attack or not but I >>>>assure you the last thing on your mind is the possible adverse affects [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > or education has the capacity to know and understand that they are entitled > to ask questions, and entitled to receive answers. Yes but in reality they don't. People aged from 50 upward (when most heart attacks occur) would have grown up in a culture that did not question doctors. It is changing, possibly due to the popularity of PC's and usenet. >>In the public system we cannot just up and fire the treating doctor, we >>do not have a choice here. > > I'm afraid I don't understand precisely what you mean by "the public > system." But I cannot conceive that you must tolerate "the" doctor who > shows up. The public system is the one that you have when you don't have health insurance. You get the treatment required but you don't get to choose your doctor. If the doctor made a disparaging racial comment, for example, > you're telling me that you could not demand a different doctor? Under those circumstances I am sure you could. >>>In short, doctors are not gods. >> >>No they are not, but I owe my life to them, how about you. > > Three times over. Me to, heart attack, cardiac arrest twice. >>>>>Now you are off statins, and suffer from symptoms which way have > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > To be more certain that the opinion is accurate. I am happy with that his opinion is accurate, after all I did improve some what after stopping the drug. >>>>>From this you conclude that campaigns to "inform the public" in >>> [quoted text clipped - 57 lines] > serious side effects", and the doctors and the pharmaceuticals are > conspiring to ignore and/or cover this up. I will leave them to answer if they wish. > In my opinion, I'm the one helping the minority. I acknowledge that a very > small minority will not be able to tolerate statin therapy, but that this > minority can avoid serious damage by being educated about statins, by > demanding that questions be answered, that recommended periodic testing > protocols be followed, and that, if they present symptoms, these symptoms be > understood and taken seriously by allegedly competent medical personnel. In the above statement you are of course correct, no argument. > Frankly, your post indicates that the above paragraph represents an > impossibility. I just don't understand why. The impossibility arises because in reality it just doesn't happen. >>Cappy >> > Steve > >><snip> > >> [quoted text clipped - 100 lines] > grown up in a culture that did not question doctors. It is changing, > possibly due to the popularity of PC's and usenet. I'm over 50. But that's almost beside the point. The point is, that conceding your "reality" for the sake of discussion, that does not to my way of thinking justifying providing disinformation to people reading this newsgroup looking for information. It does not justify posting one sided stuff that may convince folks to avoid medications that are overwhelmingly likely to help them, and which, if the person is unlucky enough to one of the small minority which does suffer side effects, will not produce debilitating symptoms as a result of the side effects if the person is properly monitored and diagnosed. > >>In the public system we cannot just up and fire the treating doctor, we > >>do not have a choice here. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > insurance. You get the treatment required but you don't get to choose > your doctor. OK. > If the doctor made a disparaging racial comment, for example, > > you're telling me that you could not demand a different doctor? > Under those circumstances I am sure you could. And I believe that in the event that you described symptoms consistent with statin induced adverse side effects, and were not told that you would be tested for them and/or would not be taken off the statin at least temporarily, that you could demand to speak with another doctor or a supervisor. > >>>In short, doctors are not gods. > >> [quoted text clipped - 86 lines] > > serious side effects", and the doctors and the pharmaceuticals are > > conspiring to ignore and/or cover this up. > I will leave them to answer if they wish. That's probably the right thing to do. > > In my opinion, I'm the one helping the minority. I acknowledge that a very > > small minority will not be able to tolerate statin therapy, but that this > > minority can avoid serious damage by being educated about statins, by > > demanding that questions be answered, that recommended periodic testing > > protocols be followed, and that, if they present symptoms, these symptoms be > > understood and taken seriously by allegedly competent medical personnel. > In the above statement you are of course correct, no argument. Then we've agreed to agree on that much. > > Frankly, your post indicates that the above paragraph represents an > > impossibility. I just don't understand why. > The impossibility arises because in reality it just doesn't happen. I disagree. I'm certain it happens quite a bit of its own accord, and it happens somewhat based upon the patient taking appropriate action. > >>Cappy > >> > > Steve Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >>>><snip> >>>> [quoted text clipped - 307 lines] > I disagree. I'm certain it happens quite a bit of its own accord, and it > happens somewhat based upon the patient taking appropriate action. Steve thank you very much for the discussion, it's been very enlightening. Cappy >>>>Cappy >>> >>>Steve > > Steve > >>Steve > >> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > So stuff those that can't..... eh Steve, majority rules and all that. 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." > 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. 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. > 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. This is highly inaccurate. I am not aware that doctors and people in the pharmaceutical industries don't care. > Zee is bringing informed (by experience) and documented information to > those contemplating taking this drug, and I hope she continues to do so. 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. > Ahem, > Cappy > (Still trying to out run the death grip clutches of Statin therapy) Sure. Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message Steve Every day I and a couple other people receive two to five private e-mails asking how to recover from statin syndrome. They aren't from the same people over and over. They are newly injured desperate people who are not getting better months and years after stopping statins. They have lost their jobs and their homes, their businesses and their marriages. There are suicides. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. And that is a quote from a very highly esteemed cardiologist. There are at least three posters here who have suffered some variation of this above. There are at least another four whom *I* think are suffering statin syndrome but who won't admit it or don't recognize it. It's not a tiny minority with a genetic predisposition to side effect who hve statin damage Steve. Yes there is probably a genetic factor for a small percentage of people, but then there is the universal damage that coenzyme q10 depletion causes to nerves, myelin sheath and brain (if that theory is correct) and then there is the mitochondrial damage that will be universal too. These aren't my theories Steve but those of Dr. Golomb and Dr. Phillips to name only two. I have corresponded privately with many researchers who agree. Soon there will be studies on this published by several researchers. I have a short shelf life not having fully recovered myself Steve so you will understand if I now direct my limited energy to those asking for information and help. With respect and gratitude for mitzvahs. Zee > > > > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > It's not a tiny minority with a genetic predisposition to side effect > who hve statin damage Steve. Evidence? > Yes there is probably a genetic factor for > a small percentage of people, but then there is the universal damage > that coenzyme q10 depletion causes to nerves, myelin sheath and brain > (if that theory is correct) and then there is the mitochondrial damage > that will be universal too. Evidence? > These aren't my theories Steve but those of > Dr. Golomb and Dr. Phillips to name only two. I have corresponded > privately with many researchers who agree. Soon there will be studies > on this published by several researchers. Yup. These guys know something that the FDA, NIH, the American Cardiological Association, the AMA, etc., don't. Right. > I have a short shelf life not having fully recovered myself Steve so > you will understand if I now direct my limited energy to those asking > for information and help. > With respect and gratitude for mitzvahs. > > Zee Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > > > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Yup. These guys know something that the FDA, NIH, the American > Cardiological Association, the AMA, etc., don't. Right. No Steve. FDA et al know by now. The studies are in the clearing process. Please try not to be so hostile. It is simply not helpful. And as you know, I might crack and respond in kind. The last time we did that you yelled uncle. Zee > > I have a short shelf life not having fully recovered myself Steve so > > you will understand if I now direct my limited energy to those asking [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >> > > > > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message >> > [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > Zee However, one really can not take it as evidence until one sees it, sees what it says, and has an opportunity to hear opposing views. Is there any preliminary information available? Bill >> > I have a short shelf life not having fully recovered myself Steve > so [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal >> view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 Bill For the most part you already know. It isn't anything we haven't read being discussed here. I do not have access to the double-blind randomized trial info. I do have one small study which is very preliminary and part of ongoing work by that PI. I have been asked not to post it yet. It's done, written, accepted for publication in a small quarterly. As soon as I can post it I will. There are two or three other studies coming along. I know some of the people who were subjects, and as soon as I'm given the write-up I'll post it or Sharon Hope will. There are still so many questions because this hasn't been a multi million dollar industry funded effort. I await Golomb's study with interest. But I don't think it's going to 'vindicate' anybody or anything. It's just a beginning of something that should have been done long ago. All the information, negative and positive up front. Some real, satisfying, systemic change. Not just a lawsuit for one person. If anything approaches vindication, for me, that's it. Zee Zee > > > > > > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in message > > > [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > as you know, I might crack and respond in kind. The last time we did > that you yelled uncle. Really? "The last time" you resorted to posting distortions (posts from people sharing my name, but who were not me) and outright lies. Go ahead and do it again; anyone can be a "big man (or woman)" when s/he is protected from libel by anonymity. It shows that you are running out of relevant arguments, as, for example, in the post to which I'm responding. You now rely upon studies in the clearing process. And you have a strange definition of hostility. You are hostile to all doctors, all pharmaceutical companies, and to statins, notwithstanding that statins help millions of people without causing side effects. I'm suggesting that if you want to aid the public's right to know, that you present the whole picture, not a small portion of it. That you regard that as being "hostile" says a lot about you and your agenda. > Zee Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 And you have absolutely no sense of humour. Zee > And you have absolutely no sense of humour. > > Zee It is difficult to tell when a correspondent is intending a written comment to be humorous, particularly when the correspondent is complaining that s/he has been mistreated by one's posts. Hence, certain e-mail/Usenet conventions such as :), or o) or ;) etc. It is also difficult to entertain humor when the topic involves peoples' lives, or at least the quality of their lives. Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >>>>Steve >>>> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Who said that? 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 > 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." Actually Zee is helping to get the minority figures down. >>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. > > That is not so. Yes it is. For many, if not most (I don't have exact numbers), side > effects of statins are reversed once use ceases. For many, but not all. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > the vast majority of drugs of all comes come with all of the above save only > the requirement for testing. In reality most people just don't read these list's, they put their trust in their doctor(s). >>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. > This is highly inaccurate. I am not aware that doctors and people in the > pharmaceutical industries don't care. I didn't say they don't care per se. >>Zee is bringing informed (by experience) and documented information to >>those contemplating taking this drug, and I hope she continues to do so. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve > >>>>Steve > >>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > "Again, for every person who cannot tolerate statins, there are > literally tens of thousands who can, do and benefit from statins." 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. > 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. 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. > 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 [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > That is not so. > Yes it is. 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"). > For many, if not most (I don't have exact numbers), side > > effects of statins are reversed once use ceases. > > For many, but not all. Correct. > > 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 [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > In reality most people just don't read these list's, they put their > trust in their doctor(s). 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? > >>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 [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I didn't say they don't care per se. Then what did you say? > >>Zee is bringing informed (by experience) and documented information to > >>those contemplating taking this drug, and I hope she continues to do so. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > > > Steve Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > snip> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>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. They do listen Steve, and then they go home and take the drug. >>>>Ahem, >>>>Cappy >>>>(Still trying to out run the death grip clutches of Statin therapy) >>> >>>Sure. Steve, I spent many a time lying in a hospital bed totally exhausted and in intense pain thinking that death would soon come knocking. when I was eventually diagnosed as having a bad reaction to a statin and the drug stopped I picked up and have never been back to hospital for those same complaints, but those times are imprinted in my memory, that's why I am still running. >>>Steve > > Steve > > snip> > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > They do listen Steve, and then they go home and take the drug. But that's the the middle of the process that the patient should be engaged in, not the end of the process. > >>>>Ahem, > >>>>Cappy [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > > > Steve Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > snip> > > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > where > > >>>people are seeking help. So let me get this straight ceouncillor. In the American legal system I pay you to go into the courtroom and present my side and the other side. > > >>>Any competent physician Aye there's the rub. will fully inform a > > >>>patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug Provided the physician knows them. Provided the pharmaceutical company hasn't suppressed them, provided it was looked at in the clincial trials. The serious side effects we are seeing were aftermarket and for example the FDA still makes no warning about them. 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 Wanna bet councillor? > > > one, is > > > > > >>>that people don't listen. Another is that after they've taken the drug for awhile they lose the ability for cogent thinking and stepped decision making. They lose working memory. And when they do they are dismissed by the badly informed physicians who assure them the symptoms that are being exhibited are not from statins. Three years ago when Baycol was recalled, and today. > > They do listen Steve, Steve isn't listening. Unless of course he was always a hostile aggressive inappropriately angry SOB. : ) > But that's the the middle of the process that the patient should be engaged > in, not the end of the process. That's where they end up if they have the cognitive side effect which manifests itself just about the time the other side effects do. Incapable of recognizing, incapable of expressing what they recognize, and incapable of realizing their doctors may be wrong when they say the side effects are caused by their original condition ie) heart disease. But finally councillor, and again councillor, are you paid to go into the courtroom and present both sides of the argument? The other side of the argument, if that is how you wish to put it (I don't) is well represented. We've got it councillor. Ad nauseum. Zee > > >>>>Ahem, > > >>>>Cappy [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > > snip> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > pay you to go into the courtroom and present my side and the other > side. You would pay an attorney. But not pay me, because although I am a lawyer, I don't do litigation. > > > >>>Any competent physician > > Aye there's the rub. Indeed. But there are safeguards, the legal system only being one of them and in fact being the last resort. > will fully inform a > > > >>>patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug > > Provided the physician knows them. A competent physician is aware of all established potentially harmful side effects. > Provided the pharmaceutical company > hasn't suppressed them, provided it was looked at in the clincial > trials. Pharamceutical companies routinely publish reams of information re potentially harmful side effects, drug interactions, etc. for their products. > The serious side effects we are seeing were aftermarket and for > example the FDA still makes no warning about them. Because they haven't been established yet by published and peer reviewed studies, as you are well aware. And, because the most likely will be shown to occur (if at all) in a very, very small minority of people taking statin drugs, there will be no bigger deal made of them than is made of the current known potentially harmful side effects. > being > > > >>>prescribed. You cannot fill the prescription without receiving [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Wanna bet councillor? I have filled literally hundreds of prescriptions, and have never failed to receive the appropriate paperwork. My neighbor, on the other hand, has had it happen to her on several occasions, and has never failed to obtain the appropriate paperwork before leaving the pharmacy. She simply had enough sense to ask for the paperwork. > > > > one, is > > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > ability for cogent thinking and stepped decision making. They lose > working memory. So this loss of cognitive abilities is binary, like a light switch? It's there now, and then it's "turned off" instantly? I somehow doubt that. I've been given prescription medicine that caused me to be overly tired and somewhat "dulled" mentally. It took me about three days to figure that out, and about three hours of my time (round trip to the doctor followed by a visit to the pharmacy) to have the medication changed for a different medication. Problem solved. > And when they do they are dismissed by the badly > informed physicians who assure them the symptoms that are being > exhibited are not from statins. Physicians cannot attribute symptoms to causes where there is no published, peer reviewed study that establishes that a given drug is in fact the cause of the symptom(s). > Three years ago when Baycol was > recalled, and today. Are you aware of the fact that Baycol was recalled actually refutes your position. > > > They do listen Steve, > > Steve isn't listening. Unless of course he was always a hostile > aggressive inappropriately angry SOB. : ) I would suggest that it is you who are not listening, and that it is you who is bound and determined to cause more harm than has ever been caused by precription statins. :o) > > But that's the the middle of the process that the patient should be > engaged > > in, not the end of the process. > > That's where they end up if they have the cognitive side effect which > manifests itself just about the time the other side effects do. Again, I doubt that this binary effect (on one day/off the next day) is the reality of the situation. > Incapable of recognizing, incapable of expressing what they recognize, > and incapable of realizing their doctors may be wrong when they say the > side effects are caused by their original condition ie) heart disease. But capable of expressing it to you. > But finally councillor, and again councillor, are you paid to go into > the courtroom and present both sides of the argument? The other side of > the argument, if that is how you wish to put it (I don't) is well > represented. We've got it councillor. Ad nauseum. Actually, you mean counseler. And no, I don't do courtrooms. > Zee Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > > >>>>Ahem, [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > > > snip> > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > > where > > > > >>>people are seeking help. Take a course in media 101 councillor. And yes. I do mean councillor. Counselor/councillor whichever you prefer you are neither, as I pointed out in our previous threads of some months ago. People are seeking help and getting help and they will continue to get help. They have already been told the drugs were wonderful. They say over and over they were not told of side effects, or if they were they were downplayed. They have found out otherwise and want to know if anyone knows anything about that. Why yes. As a matter of fact. I do. . > You would pay an attorney. But not pay me, because although I am a lawyer, > I don't do litigation. I use the word 'You' as theoretical plural. Too abstract for you? (Specific singular). > > > > >>>Any competent physician > > Aye there's the rub. > > Indeed. But there are safeguards, the legal system only being one of them > and in fact being the last resort. Pah! You do whatever you can get away with until you're caught and then I try to sue you. We all watch it on Survivor, and wonder why America is considered garbage in garbage out by the rest of the world? > > will fully inform a > > > > >>>patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug Hindsight. I can tell you Steve you'd be mincemeat in a courtroom. If that's all you've got you might as well have phoned it in. > > Provided the physician knows them. > > A competent physician is aware of all established potentially harmful side > effects. More yada da yada da yada. > > Provided the pharmaceutical company > > hasn't suppressed them, provided it was looked at in the clincial [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > potentially harmful side effects, drug interactions, etc. for their > products. Have you followed anything of what is going on with pharma and lawsuits by various attornies general Steve? > > The serious side effects we are seeing were aftermarket and for > > example the FDA still makes no warning about them. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > drugs, there will be no bigger deal made of them than is made of the current > known potentially harmful side effects. By you. As far as the cognitive side effects are concerned Australia warned and called statins "drugs that make you forget" years ago. So just because FDA hasn't done it means it doesn't exist? Germany refuses to pay for Crestor and advises against it's use. Keep the blinkers on Steve. > > Wanna bet councillor? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > appropriate paperwork before leaving the pharmacy. She simply had enough > sense to ask for the paperwork. I could go to seven different pharmas and get seven differnet results, including one or two that would refuse me anything until I made them aware of my rights. And. It is fact, not conjecture: Information has been supressed. > So this loss of cognitive abilities is binary, like a light switch? Yes actually it can be like a light switch. Off and on, but never coming back to full candlepower. Upon reflection, I think now I was often worse right after I took my statin. But then, that was superceded by an overall complete irretrievable downward slide. Memory is muti faceted. The thinking is that statins affect certain types of memory. And then when they are not metabolized by a damaged liver properly, they stay in the tissue. (Exanta?) > > Three years ago when Baycol was > > recalled, and today. > Are you aware of the fact that Baycol was recalled actually refutes your > position. No. And I don't think the lawyers who have been trying unsuccessfully to save Baycol's corporate bacon know about this either Steve. > >> > Steve isn't listening. Unless of course he was always a hostile > > aggressive inappropriately angry SOB. : ) > > I would suggest that it is you who are not listening, and that it is you who > is bound and determined to cause more harm than has ever been caused by > precription statins. :o) Suggest away. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ > Again, I doubt that this binary effect (on one day/off the next day) is the > reality of the situation. I dunno. Some days you seem pretty cogent. Other days you're FTD. > > Incapable of recognizing, incapable of expressing what they recognize, > > and incapable of realizing their doctors may be wrong when they say the > > side effects are caused by their original condition ie) heart disease. > > But capable of expressing it to you. Capable of expressing it on about five chat boards--after the fact. Steve people who are losing their ability to speak do what any stutterer can confirm is done: they shut up. Coping. Let's ask those who have hearing problems what kind of avoidance strategies they employ until they learn better coping. But if you do not have Alzheimer's as your doctor is telling you, or dementia, or are just getting older, then you realize when you stop taking the drug, with a rush of relief what was going on. Esp if you are lucky enough to get some help. I have to send now. I'll try to finish later. If I feel like it. Zee > > But finally councillor, and again councillor, are you paid to go into > > the courtroom and present both sides of the argument? The other side of [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > > > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in news:ci7u6a $nns@odak26.prod.google.com: >> > > > > snip> >> > > > > [quoted text clipped - 217 lines] >> > > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal >> > > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 Boy, am I glad I stayed out of *this* one....! :-) L. > "Zee" <fresh~horses@despammed.com> wrote in news:ci7u6a _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > Boy, am I glad I stayed out of *this* one....! > > :-) > > L. Actually Listener, you're not even in the ones you *do* show up for. Zee : ) Reply by top posting to save some time: Below the gentle readers of this newsgroup who are still following this thread will find a post by Zee that is both loaded with nonsense, (yeah, she can go to seven different pharmacies and get seven different results, suuurrreeee she can; my wife routinely spreads my 7, prescriptions around the various neighborhood pharmacies, and has been known to transfer prescriptions at refill time when the pharmacies run promotions for doing so; she and I have _never_ failed to receive full printed information about the drug involved), and ad hominem attacks.* Both are the last refuge of someone who has simply been unable to keep up on the merits. *As an aside, Zee, you know nothing of my abilities as an attorney, or of the admiration and respect for them by my colleagues and peers. There is absolutely no problem with posting information to inform people of potential side effects, symptoms produced thereby, and cautions about making certain that doctors are both informed and informing. To confuse doing that with posting one-sided claptrap reflecting one's personal bias and some on-going studies that have yet to be peer reviewed or published, in the name of "the public's right to know" is an exercise in rationalization. Zee feels a lot better about herself and her cholesterol numbers for doing that, I'm sure. Moreover, I've no problem with any of that, save only for the overwhelming likelihood that doing what Zee has done, is guaranteed to injure more people than will be helped. That is clear from the fact that the side effects of statin drugs strike far fewer than one tenth of one percent of those taking statins. You are welcome to your rationalizations, Zee. Live long and prosper. Thread over, as far as I'm concerned. Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > > > > > > snip> > > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 217 lines] > > > > represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal > > > > view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > Reply by top posting to save some time: In the last week *Steve* no fewer than FIVE posters have enquired about statin side effects. They alrady have them, want to know if anyone knows anything about that. Count 'em. Five. And that was just in the one week. > Below the gentle readers of this newsgroup who are still following this > thread will find Guffaw. Park your ego Marcus. >>>snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > But that's the the middle of the process that the patient should be engaged > in, not the end of the process. Unless there are complications, the middle of the process *is* the end. Cappy >>>>>>Ahem, >>>>>>Cappy [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Steve > >>>snip> > >>> [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >> > >>They do listen Steve, and then they go home and take the drug. True. But there is also a beginning of the process. > > But that's the the middle of the process that the patient should be engaged > > in, not the end of the process. > > Unless there are complications, the middle of the process *is* the end. True. But once again, there is also a beginning of the process. > Cappy > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > > > Steve Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 > 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... Gee, Steve, there might be a little gap between the theory and the practice here. My doc prescribed Metformin to me in April. He took some time to explain it, how it is different the sulfanilureas that I'd had once before. He warned me that it might cause some gastric upset. He didn't warn me about lactic acidosis, and the interaction with alcohol. He didn't warn me that it would deplete my B12 and folate and increase my homocysteine levels. I had to do some research myself to find that out. Was he incompetent? I don't think so. He's employed by a HMO; he only has so much time to spend on me. The 'written instructions' were a general sheet with some blanks filled in about what to do if I missed a medication, whether I should take it with meals, and a catchall phrase about reporting side effects. But wait! I did get a product information sheet, right? Well, after the 3rd time I'd had the script filled I remembered to ask the pharmacist for it. It was printed in mouse type - I can't read it without a magnifying glass. I mean this literally - I went and bought a magnifying glass at Office Depot so I could read the thing. I have a PhD and I'm used to reading technical articles. But there was a whole lot in that information sheet that was very hard for me to understand. I don't think this experience is atypical. Now, I don't think there's some great conspiracy, or that my doc and my pharmacist are incompetent. But I would say that the ACTUAL process of getting information to patients about side effects leaves a lot to be desired. And I'm VERY glad that there's USENET and the Web, so I can go hunt down the information I need by myself. Adam Becker > > Any competent physician will fully inform a > > patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug being [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Was he incompetent? I don't think so. I disagree. What you describe is quite arguably malpractice. > He's employed by a HMO; he > only has so much time to spend on me. Irrelevant. Malpractice is malpractice. > The 'written instructions' were a general sheet with some blanks > filled in about what to do if I missed a medication, whether I should [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > whole lot in that information sheet that was very hard for me to > understand. I would think that you would have asked for the information when you first filled the prescription. That you needed a magnifying glass to read the information is irrelevant. that you didn't understand what you read should have triggered a need to ask someone to explain it to you. > I don't think this experience is atypical. And I do. Starting with the malpractice, continuing with taking medication without having the product information sheet, and then ignoring the fact that you did not understand the information provided. > Now, I don't think there's some great conspiracy, or that my doc and > my pharmacist are incompetent. I would beg to differ re your doctor. Your pharmacist shuold also never have dispensed the medication without providing an information sheet. > But I would say that the ACTUAL > process of getting information to patients about side effects leaves a > lot to be desired. Well, to what extent would you want to improve it? You would rather the doctor told you everything. Don't you think that there are substantially more doctors out there that do fully inform their patients than that do not? I have never, that's as in "not even once", ever had a medication dispensed to me without a fully informative product information sheet being provided. That, over the years, I too have sometimes needed a magnifying glass to read the thing was no impediment, but perhaps you want the sheets printed in larger type. That's fine. As to not understanding the information provided, and then not requiring the pharmacist and/or the doctor to fill you in, ISTM that the patient is the one who needs to "improve" that part of the process. > And I'm VERY glad that there's USENET and the Web, so I can go hunt > down the information I need by myself. No dispute there. My quarrel is with those who do that for other people, but due to having an axe to grind, provide only a small portion of the picture. > Adam Becker Steve SignatureThe above posting is neither a legal opinion nor legal advice, because we do not have an attorney-client relationship, and should not be construed as either. This posting does not represent the opinion of my employer, but is merely my personal view. To reply, delete _spamout_ and replace with the numeral 3 >> Any competent physician will fully inform a >> patient of the potentially harmful side effects of any drug being [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > Adam Becker fyi. The sheets I get from CVS or elsewhere usually do list side effects and cautions but are not as complete as the prescribing information. I just took a peek at one and it was pretty long in small type about possible side effects. Bill > In article <cho4l4$vuu@odbk17.prod.google.com>, > > Read here for the experiences of others who took pravachol: > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Louise Crestor is so new there hasn't been a lot of patient years to provide information. But this is a class of drugs. All drugs in this class behave similarly to each other. Read the Crestor article in the Medication Sense newsletter and take it to your doctor. Tell him/her about your problems and ask about treatment options, beginning with lifestyle changes and considering lower doses, different drugs with the same therapeutic outcome, or no drugs. Zee |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.