Muscle pain with Statin
Po...@nospam.invalid
lately I've had problem with muscle pain in the backs of my legs
(hamstrings, calves, & knees). The first time it happened was a couple
of months ago when I ran out of CoQ10. The pain went away though, when
I began the CoQ10 again.
Same problem occured two weeks ago even though I was taking the CoQ10.
So I took myself off the Pravavstatin thinking I'd stay off a week or
so. But it's been a week now and the pain persists even though I'm
still on the CoQ10. A heating pad helps temporarily but the pain comes
back within a few hours.
Does anyone know exactly why a Statin causes muscle pain? And what is
the usual remedy? I'll talk to my doc next week but thought I'd ask
here in the mean time.
Thanks in advance,
Port.
Po...@nospam.invalid
>x-no-archive: yes
>It actually causes destruction of muscle and raises inflammation.
>Sometimes, the damage is permanent off the drug. It also suppresses
>adrenal steroid synthesis, which leads to both pain and inflammation, so
>you might try taking some pantethine (not pantothenic acid) to see if
>that helps; it tends to improve adrenal function. It also vastly
>improves lipids ratios, but in a healthy, non damaging way, by improving
>adrenal steroid synthesis. Your adrenal steroids are all made from LDL
>cholesterol, so your body raises LDL to make them when you need them,
>and lowers LDL when you're making adequate amounts of steroids.
>
>Adrenal insufficiency is an expected effect of statins:
<snipped cites>
Okay thanks.
I'll be reading for awhile to absorb all that. :-)
Thanks again,
Port
Jack Campin - bogus address
> Sometimes, the damage is permanent off the drug. It also suppresses
> adrenal steroid synthesis, which leads to both pain and inflammation, so
> you might try taking some pantethine (not pantothenic acid) to see if
> that helps; it tends to improve adrenal function. It also vastly
> improves lipids ratios, but in a healthy, non damaging way, by improving
> adrenal steroid synthesis.
From the figures I've seen by its advocates, it never manages to
lower cholesterol to the same extent as statins - atorvastatin has
cut my total cholesterol in half, pantethine only manages about 12%
reduction at best.
But if you're getting rhabdomyolysis you don't have much option.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u k
Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU, Scotland
mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter: JackCampin
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> I've been on Pravastatin (Generic Pravachol) for well over a year but
> lately I've had problem with muscle pain in the backs of my legs
> (hamstrings, calves, & knees). The first time it happened was a couple
> of months ago when I ran out of CoQ10. The pain went away though, when
> I began the CoQ10 again.
> Same problem occured two weeks ago even though I was taking the CoQ10.
> So I took myself off the Pravavstatin thinking I'd stay off a week or
> so. But it's been a week now and the pain persists even though I'm
> still on the CoQ10. A heating pad helps temporarily but the pain comes
> back within a few hours.
> Does anyone know exactly why a Statin causes muscle pain?
It can lower CoQ10 levels.
> And what is
> the usual remedy?
It is possible that your latest batch of CoQ10 supplement has less
CoQ10 than you need.
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier for mind, body, and soul:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f882137d4e2858d8?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of "Be Hungry"
http://NetCabal.com
"Don't be left behind as were Cleopas and Simon ...
... -----------------> be hungry ! ! !"
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/980b41e6999de315?
Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de?
MU
Hamstring, gastroc-soleus and knee joint issues with lowered CoQ10
levels can be induced from a stiffening in the flexibility of the lower
spine, interference with the entire musculo-nero pathway or tightened
gastroc-soleus-Achilles (calf) complex. I'm assuming you have had no
major lifting experiences which could have caused dmage to any of the
aforementioned..
Tight calf muscle-Achilles tendon unit. This muscle-tendon unit crosses
both the knee and the ankle. You can tell your calf muscle-tendon
complex is tight if you cannot raise the ball of your foot higher than
the heel of that foot with the leg extended (straight).
If you are having issues with the chemical sequences which fire the
various muscles at and around the accompanying joints, you will need to
address higher concentrations of CoQ10 (as Chung pointed out).
You're tightened hamstrings-inflexibility of the lower spine can be
chemically induced or could be from a change in lifestyle which occurred
after your diagnosis I.e. it could be independent of statin usage.
Last, try wet heat, the heating pad only masks pain temporarily and
provides surface heating, the problems are deeper in the tissues.
Po...@nospam.invalid
2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
considerably. Almost gone completely. I've doubled up on the CoQ10 in
the last few days. I haven't had a physical injury or change in
lifestyle of which I'm aware that may have caused my problem. Seems an
unlikely coincidence that it could be something other than the statin,
considering the timing of events. But who knows. Btw, I've tried
Pantethine before though, for several months, but it had no effect in
my particular case. So for now, I'm going to just try increasing my
daily CoQ10 intake, get back on the statin, and see what happens next.
If the pain returns, I'll go to plan B. I don't know yet what plan B
will be though lol! but I haven't talked with my Cardiologist about it
yet. Maybe he has an idea too.
I appreciate the responses to my post though. I definitely have more
info now to make some sort of alternate decision later if need be.
Thanks again,
Port
On Sat, 14 Nov 2009 16:10:44 -0600, Po...@nospam.invalid wrote:
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>Thanks everybody for the advice and info.
Laus Deo for your thanks :-)
> At this point, after almost
>2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
>considerably. Almost gone completely.
Laus Deo for His answering this disciple's prayer and healing you:
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for the heart:
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f882137d4e2858d8?
Jimmy Alpha
> Port wrote:
>
>> Thanks everybody for the advice and info.
>
> Laus Deo for your thanks :-)
>
> http://HeartMDPhD.com/LausDeo
>
>> At this point, after almost
>> 2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
>> considerably. Almost gone completely.
>
> Laus Deo for His answering this disciple's prayer and healing you:
Doc, you prayed for an incomplete healing, kool!
Jimmy Alpha
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
> > Port wrote:
> >
> >> Thanks everybody for the advice and info.
> >
> > Laus Deo for your thanks :-)
> >
> >
> >> At this point, after almost
> >> 2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
> >> considerably. Almost gone completely.
> >
> > Laus Deo for His answering this disciple's prayer and healing you:
>
> Doc, you prayed for an incomplete healing, kool!
No.
The written prayer request was that Port be hungrier (healthier).
Would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying before
you lose your mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/380577c79689400b?
Yes, you know you have been lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to renew minds:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/976a4521b541c4cf?
May GOD renew and strengthen your brain about knowing what is right
(Jeremiah 9:24), Jimmy, so that you would be able to rein in your
deceitful heart (Jeremiah 17:9) which is causing you to continue
sinning.
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
Jimmy Alpha
>> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>>> Port wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks everybody for the advice and info.
>>> Laus Deo for your thanks :-)
>>>
>>> http://WDJW.net/LausDeo
>>>
>>>> At this point, after almost
>>>> 2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
>>>> considerably. Almost gone completely.
>>> Laus Deo for His answering this disciple's prayer and healing you:
>> Doc, you prayed for an incomplete healing, kool!
>
> No.
>
> The written prayer request was that Port be hungrier (healthier).
>
> Would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying before
> you lose your mind:
Oh charlie!
lol hahahahah
Jimmy Alpha
MU
> Thanks everybody for the advice and info. At this point, after almost
> 2 weeks of being off the statin, the pain has suddenly subsided
> considerably. Almost gone completely. I've doubled up on the CoQ10 in
> the last few days. I haven't had a physical injury or change in
> lifestyle of which I'm aware that may have caused my problem. Seems an
> unlikely coincidence that it could be something other than the statin,
> considering the timing of events. But who knows. Btw, I've tried
> Pantethine before though, for several months, but it had no effect in
> my particular case. So for now, I'm going to just try increasing my
> daily CoQ10 intake, get back on the statin, and see what happens next.
> If the pain returns, I'll go to plan B. I don't know yet what plan B
> will be though lol! but I haven't talked with my Cardiologist about it
> yet. Maybe he has an idea too.
> I appreciate the responses to my post though. I definitely have more
> info now to make some sort of alternate decision later if need be.
> Thanks again,
> Port
Good luck!
Jason
<efacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
I don't know what sort of advice you have been getting. Statins are known
for causing muscle pain and weakness. Statins can also cause a terrible
disease called rhabdomyolysis. Statins can also cause serious memory
problems. I suggest that you buy this book:
REVERSE HEART DISEASE NOW by Stephen T. Sinatra, M.D. and James C.
Roberts, M.D. Dr. Sinatra and Dr. Roberts are cardiologists. There is a
section in the book related to statins.
If you plan to start taking statins again, take lots of CoQ10 and also
take the lowest dose that is available. Also, don't start statins again
until AFTER you have read the above mentioned book. Google rhabdomyolysis.
I am not a doctor. However, I also had trouble with statins so have done
lots of research on statins. In my case, they caused serious memory
problems and as a result I decided to stop taking statins.
Jason
Jack Campin - bogus address
> lots of research on statins. In my case, they caused serious memory
> problems and as a result I decided to stop taking statins.
So what? That's a rare side effect (as are all of the side effects
of statins). Your experience does not give you any right to demand
that the side-effect-free majority of people shouldn't use them.
Jason
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
I really don't care whether or not people take statins. I realize that
many people can take them without having serious side effects. However,
everyone should be advised of the side effects of any medications they are
taking. I see nothing wrong with advising people about the side effects of
statins or any other medication.
James...@yahoo.com
wrote:
Note the classic anger symptoms in this author. Also the denial of
some side effects that have been proven universal in clinical trials
indicates probable loss of cognitive function. The angry false
accusation of what the original author actually said is further
evidence that this person is suffering one common side effect due to
this class of drug. The fact is fully 40% of people put on statins
must withdraw within the first five years of treatment due to side
effects. Very few, if any, are fully side effect free. The clinical
evidence is compelling. For some side effects are mild and
tolerable. For a great many this is not the case. This person will
either be off statins within a few years or in trouble due to
violence. Recovery after withdrawal will be very slow if he has been
on the drugs for five years already, which based on evident symptoms
is quite likely.
MU
So what you are blithering is that some percentage of the 50% can stand
the side effects. so let's say then that 70% who take statins tolerate
them and receive the medical benefits from them.
My goodness, whodathunkit, prescriptive relief with consequences.
LOL
Jack Campin - bogus address
> The fact is fully 40% of people put on statins must withdraw within
> the first five years of treatment due to side effects.
If you have five years less accumulation of arterial plaque you have
significantly less chance of getting sick from it. So what if you
have to quit? (Even more "so what" if 60% of people taking statins
*don't* have to quit).
I'm on a statin but don't expect to stay on it forever - I'm young
enough that other treatments will come along. Meanwhile, it works,
and I have no side effects at all.
What's your hidden agenda? Why on earth would anyone want to go on
a crusade like yours? Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't
used it for 20 years, but I'm not about to start a campaign for a
global Andrex boycott.
MU
> Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't
> used it for 20 years,
Ok I'll bite. Rags?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> Ok I'll bite. Rags?
Once you've identified the problem a lot of different solutions
come to mind. I only figured it out after realizing that I had
contact dermatitis on my fingers that I knew came from paper -
now where else comes in contact with paper and has been getting
inflamed for years?...
Jason
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> James...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > The fact is fully 40% of people put on statins must withdraw within
> > the first five years of treatment due to side effects.
>
> If you have five years less accumulation of arterial plaque you have
> significantly less chance of getting sick from it. So what if you
> have to quit? (Even more "so what" if 60% of people taking statins
> *don't* have to quit).
>
> I'm on a statin but don't expect to stay on it forever - I'm young
> enough that other treatments will come along. Meanwhile, it works,
> and I have no side effects at all.
>
> What's your hidden agenda? Why on earth would anyone want to go on
> a crusade like yours? Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't
> used it for 20 years, but I'm not about to start a campaign for a
> global Andrex boycott.
>
I can't speak for anyone else but myself. I am NOT on a crusade against
statins. I realize that many people that take them do NOT suffer from
serious side effects. However, people that take statins should be advised
of the side effects and should be warned to STOP taking statins if they do
start having any of those serious side effects such as muscle pain. The
reason is because if that person who had serious muscle pain kept taking
statins, it could in some cases cause a terrible disease called
RHABDOMYOLYSIS. I know about a person that developed that disease and it
caused him to be disabled for the rest of his life. His wife told me in
detail about his condition.
jason
MU
>>> Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't used it for 20 years,
>> Ok I'll bite. Rags?
>
> Once you've identified the problem a lot of different solutions
> come to mind. I only figured it out after realizing that I had
> contact dermatitis on my fingers that I knew came from paper -
> now where else comes in contact with paper and has been getting
> inflamed for years?...
OK, not rags then. Do you swish your butt in the toilet bowl?
Mike Maggio
> I can't speak for anyone else but myself. I am NOT on a crusade against
> statins. I realize that many people that take them do NOT suffer from
> serious side effects. However, people that take statins should be advised
> of the side effects and should be warned to STOP taking statins if they do
> start having any of those serious side effects such as muscle pain. The
> reason is because if that person who had serious muscle pain kept taking
> statins, it could in some cases cause a terrible disease called
> RHABDOMYOLYSIS. I know about a person that developed that disease and it
> caused him to be disabled for the rest of his life. His wife told me in
> detail about his condition.
> jason
Yeah but did you fuck her?
--
My car's falling apart, I have had two heart attacks, I drink heavily
and weigh 325 pounds.I dream of dying with pussy hairs between my teeth.
God do I love pussy!
Mike Maggio
>>> Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't used it for 20 years,
>> Ok I'll bite. Rags?
>
> Once you've identified the problem a lot of different solutions
> come to mind. I only figured it out after realizing that I had
> contact dermatitis on my fingers that I knew came from paper -
> now where else comes in contact with paper and has been getting
> inflamed for years?...
Check your dick after you read the morning paper and beat off.
MU
> My car's falling apart, I have had two heart attacks, I drink heavily
> and weigh 325 pounds.I dream of dying with pussy hairs between my teeth.
> God do I love pussy!
It won't be long Mike. The death part anyway.
James...@yahoo.com
wrote:
You do have side effects. Everyone does. Clinical trials have
clearly shown this. Denial will not change facts. I only wish to
make a mild attempt at providing true answers, something you are
uninterested in obviously. Hardly a crusade at all. If you want a
crusade ask Chungdung's advice. He will tell you to get to a BMI of
under 20. Something no data supports.
Statins do have mild health benefits. Clinical trials have clearly
shown this to be the case. If I had a heart event I would take a
statin for 90 days as the benefits are clear short term. Clinical
trials have also clearly shown those mild benefits have little or more
likely nothing at all to do with the lowering of ldl cholesterol. If
all you want is low ldl cholesterol there are far safer and far less
costly ways to get it even lower than you can with statins. Again
clearly shown in clinical trials.
There are also life style choices you can make that have a
considerably larger impact on heart health than shown by statins or
any other drug. By and large those life style choices are free or
even save you money. Thus statins are far from the only game in town.
Your wish for an improved drug in the next decade is quite unlikely to
be realized. The development pipeline is empty. And the direction
the US is moving in health care will cause the pipeline to get lots
emptier. After all, most medical research has been done in the US.
Europe has only contributed a dribble, mainly from US facilties owned
by European companies. After Europe there has been nothing. Well,
the world is done living off US brains after they switch to their new
health care model.
Jason
<22240bbf-25bc-4da8...@d5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
James...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 19 Nov, 16:20, Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > James216...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > > The fact is fully 40% of people put on statins must withdraw within
> > > the first five years of treatment due to side effects.
> >
> > If you have five years less accumulation of arterial plaque you have
> > significantly less chance of getting sick from it. =A0So what if you
> > have to quit? =A0(Even more "so what" if 60% of people taking statins
> > *don't* have to quit).
> >
> > I'm on a statin but don't expect to stay on it forever - I'm young
> > enough that other treatments will come along. =A0Meanwhile, it works,
> > and I have no side effects at all.
> >
> > What's your hidden agenda? =A0Why on earth would anyone want to go on
> > a crusade like yours? =A0Toilet paper makes my arse itch so I haven't
> > used it for 20 years, but I'm not about to start a campaign for a
> > global Andrex boycott.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ----
> > e =A0m =A0a =A0i =A0l =A0 =A0: =A0 =A0j =A0a =A0c =A0k =A0 @ =A0 c =A0a =
> =A0m =A0p =A0i =A0n =A0 . =A0 m =A0e =A0 . =A0 u =A0k
> > Jack Campin, =A011 Third Street, =A0Newtongrange, =A0Midlothian EH22 4PU,=
> =A0Scotland
> > mobile 07800 739 557 =A0 =A0 =A0 <http://www.campin.me.uk> =A0 =A0 =A0Twi=
It would be wonderful if all people could live to the age of 90 or 100
without ever having to take any medications. However, we both know that
most of us will eventually have to take some type of medication or
medications. In that case, we will have to be concerned about the side
effects of those medications. The sad truth is that most patients don't
even seek to learn about the side effects of the medications they are
taking.
MU
> If you want a
> crusade ask Chungdung's advice. He will tell you to get to a BMI of
> under 20
I doubt that Chung has any serious interest in BMI statistics at all.
The only "statistic" anyone needs is a mirror, two fingers to squeeze
(any) VAT and a $9 weight scale to mange food consumption.
MU
> It would be wonderful if all people could live to the age of 90 or 100
> without ever having to take any medications. However, we both know that
> most of us will eventually have to take some type of medication or
> medications. In that case, we will have to be concerned about the side
> effects of those medications. The sad truth is that most patients don't
> even seek to learn about the side effects of the medications they are
> taking.
Two reasons, they don't ask, when they don't ask they aren't told by
most physicians. It's part of the managed care game and part of patient
irresponsibility. It's no longer an issue of getting a basic education
as long as you or someone you know has Internet access.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> about the side effects of the medications they are taking.
> Two reasons, they don't ask, when they don't ask they aren't told by
> most physicians. It's part of the managed care game and part of patient
> irresponsibility. It's no longer an issue of getting a basic education
> as long as you or someone you know has Internet access.
Since when did Internet access help? Most medical information beyond
the level of the package insert is only available on pay-to-read sites.
Specific example: the cardiologist I saw recently decided not to put
me on an ACE inhibitor. My GP (not the sharpest scalpel in the packet)
went ahead and prescribed one anyway.
I took one look at the package insert, saw that the stuff was not
recommended if you have scleroderma, and decided to give it a miss.
I have morphoea, the localized form of scleroderma, and I am truly
not interested in getting one of the other kinds - besides, I don't
have any problem ACE inhibitors might fix, to any significant degree.
BUT: I would have liked to know why - where did that caution come from?
How serious an issue is it, really? I can imagine the mechanism, but
that's about all. Look on the web for more and all you get is the
(freely available) information on that package insert, repeated over
and over and over and over again on a zillion pill-pushing websites,
most of which are simply using it because it costs them nothing and
makes them look (to the gullible) as if they're providing a public
service. Try to find the experimental studies behind the package
insert, and you're screwed unless you have access to a research
library or are prepared to spend a fortune on downloading journal
articles.
MU
>>> The sad truth is that most patients don't even seek to learn
>>> about the side effects of the medications they are taking.
>> Two reasons, they don't ask, when they don't ask they aren't told by
>> most physicians. It's part of the managed care game and part of patient
>> irresponsibility. It's no longer an issue of getting a basic education
>> as long as you or someone you know has Internet access.
>
> Since when did Internet access help? Most medical information beyond
> the level of the package insert is only available on pay-to-read sites.
Since when can't you comprehend the phrase "basic education"?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
"Written laughter is silent despair." -- Holy Spirit
Amen.
Would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying before
you lose your mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/380577c79689400b?
Yes, you know you have been lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to renew minds:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/976a4521b541c4cf?
May GOD renew and strengthen your brain about knowing what is right
(Jeremiah 9:24), Jimmy, so that you would be able to rein in your
deceitful heart (Jeremiah 17:9) which is causing you to continue
sinning.
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/035c93540862751c?
What are the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven?
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/980b41e6999de315?
Only the truth can cure the "hunger is starvation" delusion:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/74281ab7d7ce78de?
Jimmy Alpha wrote:
> Andrew, in the Holy Spirit, boldly wrote:
>> noego wrote:
>
>>> That is, farewell to commuting to work by bicycle. Having been broadsided by
>>> a lady driver who went through a roundabout much too fast, I was left alive
>>> but bruised, and possibly cracked ribs. It hurts to go to bed, to sneeze, to
>>> cough, and to laugh - and I <have to> keep on laughing. It's now
>>> recreational riding for me - that and the exercise bike. And eating even
>>> less carbs.
>>
>> Laus Deo for His keeping you from greater harm.
>Why would you assume it was God keeping him safe, and not God allowing
>the bruising as a wake up call of perhaps even greater perils yet to come?
Lie.
No assumption was made.
It remains a fact that greater harm such as a broken neck could have
happened and that GOD did not allow such greater harm to happen to
Henry.
Would continue to gently suggest that you, Jimmy, stop lying before
you lose your mind:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6a814342bee7b697?
Yes, you know you have been lying:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/363c44ee711557eb?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to renew minds:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/976a4521b541c4cf?
May GOD renew and strengthen your brain about knowing what is right
(Jeremiah 9:24), Jimmy, so that you would be able to rein in your
deceitful heart (Jeremiah 17:9) which is causing you to continue
sinning.
Amen.
Love in the truth,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Heart Doctor
and Author of "Trust the Truth:"
http://www.amazon.com/-/e/B002G22ZWG
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Jason
<efacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
Yes, they may very well have internet access but it does NOT mean they use
the internet to find out the side effects of the medications they are
taking. An excellent example is my neighbor. She takes about a dozen
medications a day. I asked about the side effects of those medications and
she told me that she did not know about the side effects of any of
medications she was taking. There are probably millions of people like my
neighbor. She has access to the internet but does NOT use it to find out
the side effects of the many different medications she is taking. How sad.
Jason
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
Another example is the side effects of NORVASC (a calcium channel
blocker). Believe it or not, it can cause a person to have angina (heart
pain) and may worsen heart failure. It can even cause shortness of breath.
One cardiologist says that it can even induce serious heart problems. I
don't understand why doctors precribe such a drug.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> blocker). Believe it or not, it can cause a person to have angina (heart
> pain) and may worsen heart failure. It can even cause shortness of breath.
> One cardiologist says that it can even induce serious heart problems. I
> don't understand why doctors precribe such a drug.
We, who are doctors, prescribe such medications when benefits outweigh
risks.
Because there is no true experience with any of these medications
being taken lifelong, it remains smart to help folks lose their VAT in
hopes of receiving a cure so that they can come off of these
medications:
Be hungrier, which truly is healthier especially for diabetics and
other heart disease patients:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/9642aafa0aad16eb?
Marana tha
Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-certified Cardiologist
and Author of the 2PD-OMER Approach:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f882137d4e2858d8?
Jack Campin - bogus address
> blocker). Believe it or not, it can cause a person to have angina (heart
> pain) and may worsen heart failure. It can even cause shortness of breath.
> One cardiologist says that it can even induce serious heart problems.
> I don't understand why doctors precribe such a drug.
Presumably because *most* of the time the effects are beneficial.
But it would certainly help to be warned of when the bad stuff
might happen.
In the UK, package inserts often give the frequency of adverse
reactions, but as far as I can work out that's only for those
which have occurred often enough to allow for a statistically
significant estimate. The "evidence-based medicine" policy now
in use in the UK means a lot of data doesn't make it into the
public sphere.
MU
Lack of access to education is an excuse.
James...@yahoo.com
wrote:
The stuff on package inserts is close to meaningless for any drug
taken on a chronic basis. It is derived from tolerance studies
conducted according to regulatory guidelines. That usually means a
six week test. Or even less time. That is just fine for some drug
that is only used for acute treatments. It is worthless for drugs
used chronically.
There is a great deal of information available on the net about
chronic results of common meds. Even if the original study was
published in a journal that requires payment there are usually
summaries that are free. Quite often animal studies are also
published in places that allow free access. For example every statin
causes cancer in mice at plasma concentrations roughly equal to those
we shoot for in human treatments. You have to run exposures for about
18 months to see these effects in mice. The information is all over
the net. We will not know if they cause cancer in humans until we
have a 30 year history of treating humans, plus quite a bit more time
to allow enough data to accumulate to reach statistical significance.
Long term human use is the only current way to find out the real
information on side effects. Drugs get banned every year due to
discovery of new and severe side effects discovered via using them in
humans. Face it, people die every year from drug induced side
effects. There are no perfectly safe chronic use drugs other than
some biologicals where you are simply adding more of what the body
already makes. And sometimes even that is not safe as in the case of
excessive insulin over time in type 2s.
In general the moral is try to not take the latest designer drugs.
Stick as much as possible to things that have been registered and used
for 40 years when it comes to drugs used chronically. New can be very
dangerous as you are playing guinea pig with your body. Statins have
killed people. Look up Baycol. Same package insert as the rest of
the statins. Acted on the same biochemical pathways the rest of the
statins act on.
Robert Miles
news:bogus-FAAFC1....@news.albasani.net...
>>> The sad truth is that most patients don't even seek to learn
>>> about the side effects of the medications they are taking.
>> Two reasons, they don't ask, when they don't ask they aren't told by
>> most physicians. It's part of the managed care game and part of patient
>> irresponsibility. It's no longer an issue of getting a basic education
>> as long as you or someone you know has Internet access.
>
> Since when did Internet access help? Most medical information beyond
> the level of the package insert is only available on pay-to-read sites.
>
I've found recently that if you have Norton Internet Security 2010
installed and use the Norton Safe Search option on the Norton toolbar
that comes with it, you can find a good selection of sites well beyond
the package insert IF you can guess what combination of keywords
to use in searching for them. For example:
http://www.physorg.com/news170938612.html
http://www.physorg.com/news126502416.html
http://www.physorg.com/news132249667.html
Also, once you find something useful at the physorg.com site, expect it to
include several links to related items that you may also be interested in.
Too technical for some people, though.
Robert Miles
Ken
Board-certified Spaming Dickhead
Jason
bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
In America, we do not package inserts that provide info. related the
frequency of adverse reactions. My guess is that lots of people have had
adverse reactions to NORVASC and STATINS.
Jason
<95875cfc-b3ac-4f3b...@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
James...@yahoo.com wrote:
> On 22 Nov, 07:19, Jack Campin - bogus address <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk>
> wrote:
> > > Another example is the side effects of NORVASC (a calcium channel
> > > blocker). Believe it or not, it can cause a person to have angina (hear=
> t
> > > pain) and may worsen heart failure. It can even cause shortness of brea=
> th.
> > > One cardiologist says that it can even induce serious heart problems.
> > > I don't understand why doctors precribe such a drug.
> >
> > Presumably because *most* of the time the effects are beneficial.
> >
> > But it would certainly help to be warned of when the bad stuff
> > might happen.
> >
> > In the UK, package inserts often give the frequency of adverse
> > reactions, but as far as I can work out that's only for those
> > which have occurred often enough to allow for a statistically
> > significant estimate. =A0The "evidence-based medicine" policy now
> > in use in the UK means a lot of data doesn't make it into the
> > public sphere.
> >
> > -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
> ----
> > e =A0m =A0a =A0i =A0l =A0 =A0: =A0 =A0j =A0a =A0c =A0k =A0 @ =A0 c =A0a =
> =A0m =A0p =A0i =A0n =A0 . =A0 m =A0e =A0 . =A0 u =A0k
> > Jack Campin, =A011 Third Street, =A0Newtongrange, =A0Midlothian EH22 4PU,=
> =A0Scotland
> > mobile 07800 739 557 =A0 =A0 =A0 <http://www.campin.me.uk> =A0 =A0 =A0Twi=
Even the medications that have been in use for 40 years can kill you or at
least cause some very bad side effects. I have weak kidneys (renal artery
stenosis) so have had serious problems with almost every medication that I
have tried to take. I get the lowest dose that is available and cut the
pills in half and still have major side effects.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>>> me on an ACE inhibitor. My GP (not the sharpest scalpel in the packet)
>>> went ahead and prescribed one anyway.
>>> I took one look at the package insert, saw that the stuff was not
>>> recommended if you have scleroderma, and decided to give it a miss.
>>> BUT: I would have liked to know why - where did that caution come from?
>>> How serious an issue is it, really?
> risks.
If you'd actually read my post you'd have seen that the two doctors
I'd seen disagreed about whether to prescribe. So this "we" is an
illusion (not that you're a doctor anyway).
> Because there is no true experience with any of these medications
> being taken lifelong,
Lovastatin was approved in 1987. 22 years is a reasonable life
expectancy after a typical diagnosis with a heart condition, so
yes there is "lifelong" experience with it.
> it remains smart to help folks lose their VAT in hopes of receiving
> a cure so that they can come off of these medications:
You need a tax accountant for that, not a doctor.
You haven't answered my question and I don't believe you can answer it.
> http://[christian crap]
Translation: Jesus can't answer it either.
Jack Campin - bogus address
>> is only available on pay-to-read sites.
> I've found recently that if you have Norton Internet Security 2010
> installed and use the Norton Safe Search option on the Norton toolbar
> that comes with it, you can find a good selection of sites well beyond
> the package insert IF you can guess what combination of keywords
> to use in searching for them. For example:
Bing and Google both index the stuff you mentioned, you don't need
Norton for it.
> Also, once you find something useful at the physorg.com site, expect
> it to include several links to related items that you may also be
> interested in.
It's okay as far as it goes, but it's them telling me what they think
I ought to know about the research literature. Which is a different
service than providing the tools for me to trace assertions to their
source on my own.
> Too technical for some people, though.
Not technical enough for me, by a long shot.
Jack Campin - bogus address
> equal to those we shoot for in human treatments. You have to run
> exposures for about 18 months to see these effects in mice.
The Merck info page for lovastatin says different:
http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mevacor/mevacor_pi.pdf
See the bottom of page 12.
> The information is all over the net.
Once somebody makes a wild exaggeration like that you can't put the
toothpaste back in the tube.
James...@yahoo.com
wrote:
It would seem you do not speak English as a native language so
communication will be difficult. I said that every statin causes
cancer in mouse tests at roughly the plasma concentrations used in
treatment of humans. The ref you supplied says:
"Carcinogenesis, Mutagenesis, Impairment of Fertility
In a 21-month carcinogenic study in mice, there was a statistically
significant increase in the incidence
of hepatocellular carcinomas and adenomas in both males and females at
500 mg/kg/day."
Seems rather simple. It caused cancer. The ref goes on to say this
is very modestly higher plasma concentration than the highest human
dosage. If you had ever worked in toxicology, as I have, you would
realize that qualifier is simply loaded with irrelevant bullshit. In
the first place mice and humans without a doubt handle the drug
somewhat differently. In the second place some people metabolize and
get rid of the drug twice as fast as others. So a given dose can lead
to rather different plasma concentrations in individuals vs the
population average which is what the ref is talking about. In the
third place the cancer concern is of no consequence if you are say
over 60 years old when you start the drug. However, if you are 30 or
40 it should be a huge concern. The usual latency period for cancer
in humans ranges up to 30 years or perhaps more. Chances are if you
are 60 when you start you will not live past age 90. On the other
hand if you are age 40 and start a statin you have a very decent
chance of living to age 85. After all, people with ldl concentrations
of 500 often live into their 80s without cholesterol lowering drugs.
So if you happen to have a peanuts ldl of say 175 at age 40 you have
every reason to expect to live a long time unless you have a miserable
genetic makeup. In which case the statin is quite unlikely to keep
you alive to 80 anyhow.
You really know nothing about science obviously. So I can understand
why you do not seem able to get information, or understand the
information you do get. Nothing abnormal about such ignorance at
all. That is why most folks have no choice but trust their doctor and
follow his advice. Unfortunately few doctors read the medical
literature either beyond abstracts. And worse few have any math
skills at all so fail to understand what they read very often. On the
other hand those of us who spent our lives doing science with our own
hands can generally put things in a bit of perspective. When there
are life style changes that offer benefits as great or greater than a
drug that risks causing cancer and you are age 40 you are a fool to
take the drug. If you are past age 60 when you start to take the drug
you are just wasting money instead of doing the life style changes and
accepting a second best outcome as you realize neither is buying you
much after a life time of abuse of your body.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
>
> Schizophrenia can set in at any time but it's usual shows up in early
> adulthood.
>
> I'm predisposed due to my biological maw spending her adult life in a
> hospital as a paranoid schizophrenic before passing in '66
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/40a1fbe0d8ff812a?
Only the truth, Who is Jesus, can keep you from becoming more
delusional like your mom was.
Bottom line concerning you, Ken:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/e444a7f27fc8ae79?
Truth is reality ...
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/459c9c0ed3b24ca2?
... despite your efforts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3160f9fd903ab7c2?
There is pure joy in being used by GOD to change hearts:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/8824c8a5b7c7518c?
May GOD give you, Ken, a new heart and a new spirit (Ezekiel 11:19-20
and 36:26) so that you would be born again of water and Spirit (John
3:3 and 3:5) so that you would come to trust the truth, Who is Jesus:
Amen.
Robert Miles
>>> Most medical information beyond the level of the package insert
>>> is only available on pay-to-read sites.
>> I've found recently that if you have Norton Internet Security 2010
>> installed and use the Norton Safe Search option on the Norton toolbar
>> that comes with it, you can find a good selection of sites well beyond
>> the package insert IF you can guess what combination of keywords
>> to use in searching for them. For example:
>> [stuff at http://www.physorg.com]
>
> Bing and Google both index the stuff you mentioned, you don't need
> Norton for it.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> e m a i l : j a c k @ c a m p i n . m e . u
> k
> Jack Campin, 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU,
> Scotland
> mobile 07800 739 557 <http://www.campin.me.uk> Twitter:
> JackCampin
From what I've seen, they also index quite a bit of stuff that is less
reliable
and less technical, and therefore take longer to sort the results for
worthwhile items.
Robert Miles
Jack Campin - bogus address
> "Jack Campin - bogus address" <bo...@purr.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >>> Most medical information beyond the level of the package insert
> >>> is only available on pay-to-read sites.
> >> I've found recently that if you have Norton Internet Security 2010
> >> installed and use the Norton Safe Search option on the Norton toolbar
> >> that comes with it, you can find a good selection of sites well beyond
> >> the package insert IF you can guess what combination of keywords
> >> to use in searching for them. For example:
> >> [stuff at http://www.physorg.com]
> >
> > Bing and Google both index the stuff you mentioned, you don't need
> > Norton for it.
> >
> [spam]
I will repeat, in full, the text you describe as "spam". I can't see
many people agreeing with your characterization:
:> Also, once you find something useful at the physorg.com site, expect
:> it to include several links to related items that you may also be
:> interested in.
: It's okay as far as it goes, but it's them telling me what they think
: I ought to know about the research literature. Which is a different
: service than providing the tools for me to trace assertions to their
: source on my own.
:> Too technical for some people, though.
: Not technical enough for me, by a long shot.
Do you have some sort of mental disability that makes you incapable of
responding constructively to even the slightest disagreement? (I have
tried discussing things on-line with Aspies before, it isn't worth it).
I asked a question at a similar level elsewhere recently and someone
helpfully pointed me to an article http://www.medscape.com . Based on
that one piece, it seems much more the sort of site I was looking for.
Robert Miles
news:bogus-7E0790....@news.albasani.net...
Looks like a typical result when someone is posting something not very
helpful,
but faking my return address instead of using their own.
Robert Miles
Jack Campin - bogus address
Is this guy clinically paranoid or just an idiot?
(Anybody curious, check back - there was no faking of return addresses
on anybody's part. My posting address is spam-protected in the same
way it's been for years, but my signature says exactly who I am).
I'd never heard of this character until this exchange, and have no idea
where he's coming from. I've never killfiled anybody faster. Bye.