Underappreciated statin-induced myopathic weakness causes disability
Sharon Hope
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Neurorehabil Neural Repair. 2005 Sep;19(3):259-63.
Underappreciated statin-induced myopathic weakness causes disability.
Dobkin BH.
University of California Los Angeles, Reed Neurologic Research Center.
bdo...@mednet.ucla.edu.
INTRODUCTION: Myopathic syndromes induced by 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl
coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins) include muscle
complaints, myalgia, myositis, and rhabdomyolysis. No prospective study of
statins, however, included tests of strength, so the incidence of weakness,
with or without muscle symptoms and elevated enzymes, is unknown, and
perhaps overlooked. METHODS: From a convenience sample of patients referred
to an outpatient neurorehabilitation clinic over the course of 1 year, 8
patients with hemiparetic stroke and 10 patients with other presumed
neurologic diseases presented with new difficulty walking by 3 to 12 months
after starting one of 3 statins. They reported no myalgias, exercise-induced
aches, or weakness. Examination revealed proximal paresis graded 4/5 on the
unaffected side in the hemiparetic patients and symmetrical bilateral
proximal limb and neck flexor weakness graded 4/5 in the others. They stood
up with difficulty and walked with bilateral hip drop and imbalance on
turns. RESULTS: Laboratory tests did not reveal myositis or other causes for
paresis. No improvement in strength or mobility was found 6 weeks after
initiating resistance exercises. The statin agent was stopped. By 3 months
off statin, all recovered 5/5 proximal strength. Walking improved, and they
arose from a chair without pushing off with their arms. DISCUSSION: Serial
manual muscle testing after initiating a statin may detect a reversible
cause of disability. A genetic predisposition to statin-induced myopathic
proximal weakness with normal creatine kinase is consistent with a continuum
of previously reported symptoms and signs but may be underappreciated.
PMID: 16093417 [PubMed - in process]
listener
news:o-OdnZ2dnZ2Lzp2rnZ2dn...@comcast.com:
> http://nnr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/259
> and
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&do
> pt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Inotherwords, for the small subset with a genetic predisposition to
statin-induced myopathy and other pre-exisiting neurologic diseases
improvement was achieved shortly after cessation of the statin.
This is good, positive news.
L.
Sharon Hope
DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job, loss
of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and suffering.
PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and anger,
knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was subjected to it
without warning and permitted to become disabled by a drug that is
precautionary, not curative.
Somehow, most who have been through it as either family or patient, would
strongly disagee with you that it has been a positive experience.
"listener" <list...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96B2A5FA48F...@38.144.126.118...
Robert
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
news:q-qdnZW8o5s...@comcast.com...
> As long as you think experiencing PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is a good thing.
Preventable disability does not solely apply to drugs. Most drug reactions
are in fact not preventable. There is no way of knowing who will experience
AE. I haven't seen it written by UCSD or anywhere except the package insert
involving contra indications.
>
> DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job,
loss
> of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and suffering.
>
> PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and anger,
> knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was subjected to
it
> without warning and permitted to become disabled by a drug that is
> precautionary, not curative.
Not is not a definition of preventable "precautionary not curative".
You are trying to prevent disease which is why the person is doing
something. That is the whole point of doing it. If somebody dies of a heart
attack while exercising was that death preventable by telling everybody not
to exercise?
There is a displacement of reality in your world.
>
> Somehow, most who have been through it as either family or patient, would
> strongly disagee with you that it has been a positive experience.
That's not what he said and I understand your distortion of reality.
William Wagner
"Robert" <Rober...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Reality...That which goes on outside and inside at the same time.
Interesting no?
Burn your arm with a match and the world really is nasty. Caress a
love one an the world holds promise.
Bill
--
Garden Shade Zone 5 S Jersey USA in a Japanese Jungle Manner.39.6376 -75.0208
This article is posted under fair use rules in accordance with
Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, and is strictly for the educational
and informative purposes. This material is distributed without profit.
Robert
"William Wagner" <Nonsence_he...@Snip.net> wrote in message
news:Nonsence_here_B2wagner...@news.supernews.com...
Doesn't have to be. Christopher Reeves did not go out and shoot the horse
that broke his neck.
He did not go out and tell people not to ride horses. He was a proponent of
nerve repair drugs and research.
Everybody is different so I am not saying one is right or one is wrong only
that there is distortion of reality when one is touched.
listener
work. I said nothing about the experience of statin-induced myopathy
being "positive". What's wrong with you? Where did I even remotely say
that?
Also, it's safe to say that the patients in the study were already
disabled to some degree before taking a statin, which then caused a *new*
disability:
"8 patients with hemiparetic stroke and 10 patients with other
presumed neurologic diseases presented with new difficulty..."
I still say that the fact they recovered within a relatively short time
period from the *new* (statin-induced) disability is hopeful, wonderful
and positive. I know it contradicts your stated views that this sort of
statin AE recovery is a long, horrible proccess where there's little
hope, if any, for full recovery. Perhaps that's why you respond in such
an angry, negative fashion.
L.
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in
news:q-qdnZW8o5s...@comcast.com:
> As long as you think experiencing PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is a good
> thing.
>
> DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job,
> loss of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and
> suffering.
>
> PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and
> anger, knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was
> subjected to it without warning and permitted to become disabled by a
> drug that is precautionary, not curative.
>
> Somehow, most who have been through it as either family or patient,
> would strongly disagee with you that it has been a positive
> experience.
>
>
>
> "listener" <list...@nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B2A5FA48F...@38.144.126.118...
>> "Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in
>> news:o-OdnZ2dnZ2Lzp2rnZ2dn...@comcast.com:
>>
>>> http://nnr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/19/3/259
>>> and
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&
>>> do pt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Bill
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
news:q-qdnZW8o5s...@comcast.com...
> As long as you think experiencing PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is a good thing.
>
> DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job, loss
> of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and suffering.
>
> PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and anger,
> knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was subjected to it
> without warning and permitted to become disabled by a drug that is
> precautionary, not curative.
>
Within the context of this study, what actions should have been taken that
were not taken to prevent the temporary disability in your view?
Bill
Sharon Hope
> Your ability to be selective is astonishing. Cognitive dissonance at
> work. I said nothing about the experience of statin-induced myopathy
> being "positive". What's wrong with you? Where did I even remotely say
> that?
>
> Also, it's safe to say that the patients in the study were already
> disabled to some degree before taking a statin, which then caused a *new*
> disability:
>
> "8 patients with hemiparetic stroke and 10 patients with other
> presumed neurologic diseases presented with new difficulty..."
>
> I still say that the fact they recovered within a relatively short time
> period from the *new* (statin-induced) disability is hopeful, wonderful
> and positive. I know it contradicts your stated views
Experience
Sharon Hope
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:AWTLe.345$hF1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
> news:q-qdnZW8o5s...@comcast.com...
>> As long as you think experiencing PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is a good thing.
>>
>> DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job,
>> loss of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and
>> suffering.
>>
>> PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and
>> anger, knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was
>> subjected to it without warning and permitted to become disabled by a
>> drug that is precautionary, not curative.
>>
>
> Within the context of this study, what actions should have been taken that
> were not taken to prevent the temporary disability in your view?
>
Your answer is within the context of the study: In the conclusion.
Bill
>
> "Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
> news:AWTLe.345$hF1...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
>> news:q-qdnZW8o5s...@comcast.com...
>>> As long as you think experiencing PREVENTABLE DISABILITY is a good thing.
>>>
>>> DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of job,
>>> loss of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to pain and
>>> suffering.
>>>
>>> PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust and anger,
>>> knowing there was no justifiable reason that the patient was subjected to
>>> it without warning and permitted to become disabled by a drug that is
>>> precautionary, not curative.
>>>
>>
>> Within the context of this study, what actions should have been taken that
>> were not taken to prevent the temporary disability in your view?
>>
>
> Your answer is within the context of the study: In the conclusion.
>
>
There is no area in the study that you posted that is labeled conclusion or
that appears to recommend actions. By within the context of the study did you
mean in your post? What should be done, in your view, to prevent these kinds
of temporary disabilities?
Did you mean that "serial manual muscle testing after initating a statin"
should be done? (I'm not sure what that is.)
Bill
listener
myopathy is a "positive experience" as you claimed or apologize.
Replying with one word "Experience" is such bullshit, Sharon. You should
be ashamed of yourself.
L.
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in
news:Fs6dnZPqgvQ...@comcast.com:
>>>>> d& do pt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Steve Marcus
> Either show me where I stated or implied that having a statin-induced
> myopathy is a "positive experience" as you claimed or apologize.
>
> Replying with one word "Experience" is such bullshit, Sharon. You should
> be ashamed of yourself.
>
> L.
>
If she can continue to post as she does regarding statins, every bit as
fervernt in her beliefs as those who opposed fluoridation of the water in
the 1950's, how can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of any
single post she writes, even one as illogical and insulting as her one word
reply?
Steve
--
The 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
William Wagner
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
> If she can continue to post as she does regarding statins, every bit as
> fervernt in her beliefs as those who opposed fluoridation of the water in
> the 1950's, how can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of any
> single post she writes, even one as illogical and insulting as her one word
> reply?
>
> Steve
Thank you Steve for a wonderful example of a run on sentence.
Here is a rehash of your words . Slanted by me.
She can continue to post as she does regarding statins. Her belief is
similar to those who opposed fluoridation of water in
> the 1950's. How can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of any
> single post she writes. Her one word repley is illogical and insulting.
Take a few deep breathes .
It is all in the context Steve. If she can continue...Get real!
listener
news:williamwag-BCD66...@news.supernews.com:
> In article <b59Me.11425$Co1.10536@lakeread01>,
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> If she can continue to post as she does regarding statins, every bit
>> as fervernt in her beliefs as those who opposed fluoridation of the
>> water in the 1950's, how can you possibly think that she would be
>> ashamed of any single post she writes, even one as illogical and
>> insulting as her one word reply?
>>
>> Steve
>
> Thank you Steve for a wonderful example of a run on sentence.
>
> Here is a rehash of your words . Slanted by me.
>
> She can continue to post as she does regarding statins. Her belief
> is
> similar to those who opposed fluoridation of water in
>> the 1950's. How can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of
>> any single post she writes. Her one word repley is illogical and
>> insulting.
>
> Take a few deep breathes .
>
> It is all in the context Steve. If she can continue...Get real!
>
>
> Bill
>
Hmmmm. I understood what he meant. No grammer lesson was needed.
L.
Sharon Hope
"Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message
news:gLWLe.1068$Z%6....@newssvr17.news.prodigy.com...
Sharon Hope
Your second sentence in your initial conclusion was offensive to anyone who
has had their loved one disabled needlessly.
"listener" <list...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96B375FB3C3...@38.144.126.103...
listener
So you're saying that improvement from myopathy after stopping statins is
a bad thing? I think you are really an incredibly disillusioned, angry
person. Seek professional help.
You really should be ashamed of yourself.
L.
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in
news:CYednRN_aIK...@comcast.com:
>>>>>>> me d& do pt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Bill
> You should contact the POC for the study with that question.
>
What does POC mean? (Google lists Prosche Owners Club, Ports of Call, etc.)
And I am asking you what you meant by Preventable Disability when you referred
to this study.
It is a serious question worthy of discussion. What should be done to help
prevent serious reactions from statins.
I'll give you my thoughts. I think part of it is an education issue both to
the provider and the patient. For the patient, perhaps a better, standard
information brochure should be given out telling him what symptoms to watch
out for, what to do when they occur, and what tests should be done - to double
check the Dr. For the Dr. better guidelines on instructing the patient and on
when to despense the statin - assuming there is enough out there to take a
better stab at it than they have done.
Bill
Sharon Hope
thing.
DISABILITY is a major change in lifestyle, and can induce loss of
job, loss of home, and harm to the family unit, in addition to
pain and suffering.
PREVENTABLE DISABILITY adds additional stress and loss of trust
and anger, knowing there was no justifiable reason that the
patient was subjected to it without warning and permitted to
become disabled by a drug that is precautionary, not curative.
Somehow, most who have been through it as either family or
patient, would strongly disagee with you that it has been a
positive experience.
We disagree, and will continue to disagree, that it is a GOOD THING to
disable patients so that, when they recover, they can consider the recovery
a GOOD THING.
To me, NOT CAUSING THE DISABILITY IS A GOOD THING.
"listener" <list...@nospam.net> wrote in message
news:Xns96B3E61C152...@38.144.126.106...
Steve Marcus
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
news:CYednRN_aIK...@comcast.com...
> Apologies should be directed to the statin disabled.
>
> Your second sentence in your initial conclusion was offensive to anyone
> who has had their loved one disabled needlessly.
Virtually everything that *you* write on the topic of statins is offensive
to people who understand anything about drug research and peer reviewed
studies. More importantly, virtually everything that *you* write is both
offensive and dangerous to people who are being aided, or could potentially
be aided, by statin therapy.
Your loved one was disabled needlessly due to an unusual adverse reaction to
a prescription drug combined with what may well have been an insensitivity
to that reaction on the part of his physician(s). Adverse reactions to
common beneficial drugs such as aspirin and penicillin have killed people
before, and will continue to do so. It's called "bad luck." Your reaction
to your loved one's bad luck is to mount a campaign of propaganda and
disinformation against statin drugs akin to the opposition to fluoridation
of water; the chief difference being that bad teeth have the potential for
killing far fewer people than coronary artery disease.
You truly need to engage in some serious self-examination.
Steve
--
The 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
>
>
>
listener
you take something and twist it around and then continue to insist that
your distortion is the truth. You really are out of touch with reality.
Nothing you say or post is to be trusted. I sincerely hope that some day
you find relief from your stress, loss of trust and anger and can move on
from this offensive, misguided crusade.
L.
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in
news:vKudnXqhvNT...@comcast.com:
>>>>>>>>> ub me d& do pt=Abstract&list_uids=16093417&query_hl=1
Sharon Hope
"Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Y9iMe.12096$Co1.5338@lakeread01...
>
> "Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
> news:CYednRN_aIK...@comcast.com...
>> Apologies should be directed to the statin disabled.
>>
>> Your second sentence in your initial conclusion was offensive to anyone
>> who has had their loved one disabled needlessly.
>
> Virtually everything that *you* write on the topic of statins is offensive
> to people who understand anything about drug research and peer reviewed
> studies. More importantly, virtually everything that *you* write is both
> offensive and dangerous to people who are being aided, or could
> potentially be aided, by statin therapy.
>
> Your loved one was disabled needlessly due to an unusual adverse reaction
> to a prescription drug combined with what may well have been an
> insensitivity to that reaction on the part of his physician(s). Adverse
> reactions to common beneficial drugs such as aspirin and penicillin have
> killed people before, and will continue to do so. It's called "bad luck."
> Your reaction to your loved one's bad luck is to mount a campaign of
> propaganda and disinformation against statin drugs akin to the opposition
> to fluoridation of water; the chief difference being that bad teeth have
> the potential for killing far fewer people than coronary artery disease.
>
This is simply not true.
The adverse effects from the Lipitor began almost immediately, and were
reported to his doctor immediately.
The doctor, lacking full disclosure of statin adverse effects and their
dangers ( this was prior to the Baycol voluntary recall), told his patient
repeatedly to ignore the adverse effects and keep taking the statin or he
would die from a heart attack.
Pain? Keep taking Lipitor or you will die. Neuropathy? Tough it out, keep
taking Lipitor or you will die. Memory loss? Haven't heard of it in
relation to Lipitor, if it Alzheimer's there is no cure anyway, so FORGET
IT, and keep taking Lipitor or you will die. CK over 10x normal at the
threshold of rhabdomyolysis, ignore the pain and keep taking Lipitor or you
will die. (no recognition that rhabdo can also make you die) Uh-oh, a
specialist says the Lipitor may kill him? His memory now scores below the 1
percentile, this in a Corporate CEO? We have nothing to discuss, just hide
the Lipitor pills from him.
Every month the degree of intensity and the number of adverse effects grew.
Every single month for 48 months. At the end of that time he was fully
disabled, physically and cognitively.
Because of the lack of disclosure about adverse effects at that time, the
damage continued to grow.
This was not just bad luck, this was a direct result, not just of the drug's
myotoxic, neurotoxic and brain-damaging propensities, but a direct result of
a lack of available honest information on statin adverse effects.
This persists, as many of the statin trials simply withold information on
adverse effects, others document known and acknowledged PI-listed adverse
effects in the "unrelated" category.
My posts center on the awareness of adverse effects.
The motivation is obvious.
If they offend you, don't read them.
Robert
>
How much money did you get from the lawsuit?
Haw...@sbcglobal.net
your issues are more with an incompetent physician than a med and its
reactions...
have you filed for malpractice??
I would...surely sounds like you have a case
against the DOCTOR....
my h.o.
"Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
news:y4udne-2crW...@comcast.com...
Jason
<sh...@anet.net> wrote:
Sharon,
Great post. Keep up the great work in regard to warning people about the
adverse effects of statins. You may have saved me from developing the same
types of problems that your husband is having. Only time will tell whether
or not I develop more serious problems. Your posts and your FAQ helped me
to determine that statins were the source of my muscle problems and memory
problems.
Jason
--
NEWSGROUP SUBSCRIBERS MOTTO
We respect those subscribers that ask for advice or provide advice.
We do NOT respect the subscribers that enjoy criticizing people.
Robert
"Jason" <ja...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:jason-16080...@pm1-broad-86.snlo.dialup.fix.net...
Think about all the publicity and people she can save by filling a lawsuit
and getting millions in damages.
It is obvious her husband has be damaged. She might be able to go on The
Larry King Show and tell people the dangers of statins.
The only problem is that the producers of the show would have to investigate
her claims and then all hell will break loose.
listener
news:mYOdnaR_Vs0...@got.net:
Great idea. Larry could also book Graveline, Dr. Cohen, Muldoon Jason and
zee on the same show. That's one show I would tune in to watch.
L.
Don Kirkman
<williamwag-BCD66...@news.supernews.com>:
>In article <b59Me.11425$Co1.10536@lakeread01>,
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote:
>> If she can continue to post as she does regarding statins, every bit as
>> fervernt in her beliefs as those who opposed fluoridation of the water in
>> the 1950's, how can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of any
>> single post she writes, even one as illogical and insulting as her one word
>> reply?
>Thank you Steve for a wonderful example of a run on sentence.
>Here is a rehash of your words . Slanted by me.
> She can continue to post as she does regarding statins. Her belief is
>similar to those who opposed fluoridation of water in
>> the 1950's. How can you possibly think that she would be ashamed of any
>> single post she writes. Her one word repley is illogical and insulting.
>Take a few deep breathes .
Actually I found Steve's version much easier to understand than yours,
and somewhat in the tradition of good English style, replete with longer
but straightforward phrases, which was quite the norm before widespread
semiliteracy set in. ISTM you lost the connotation or the grammatical
construction of at least two or his turns of phrase in your version.
>It is all in the context Steve. If she can continue...Get real!
"If she can continue" is not about whether it is possible for her to
continue (which you dropped from your version), but it sets the
condition for the final denouement; to paraphrase, if she continues to
post thus how can you expect her to feel shame (and she will continue
and she won't feel shame).
--
Don Kirkman
William Wagner
Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote:
> semiliteracy
What is it?
Steve Marcus
>
> "Steve Marcus" <smarcus_...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:Y9iMe.12096$Co1.5338@lakeread01...
>>
>> "Sharon Hope" <sh...@anet.net> wrote in message
>> news:CYednRN_aIK...@comcast.com...
>>> Apologies should be directed to the statin disabled.
>>>
>>> Your second sentence in your initial conclusion was offensive to anyone
>>> who has had their loved one disabled needlessly.
>>
>> Virtually everything that *you* write on the topic of statins is
>> offensive to people who understand anything about drug research and peer
>> reviewed studies. More importantly, virtually everything that *you*
>> write is both offensive and dangerous to people who are being aided, or
>> could potentially be aided, by statin therapy.
>>
>> Your loved one was disabled needlessly due to an unusual adverse reaction
>> to a prescription drug combined with what may well have been an
>> insensitivity to that reaction on the part of his physician(s). Adverse
>> reactions to common beneficial drugs such as aspirin and penicillin have
>> killed people before, and will continue to do so. It's called "bad
>> luck." Your reaction to your loved one's bad luck is to mount a campaign
>> of propaganda and disinformation against statin drugs akin to the
>> opposition to fluoridation of water; the chief difference being that bad
>> teeth have the potential for killing far fewer people than coronary
>> artery disease.
>>
>
> This is simply not true.
Precisely, and concisely, what part of the above paragraph "is simply not
true"?
To assist you, permit me to parse the paragraph:
1. "Your loved one was disabled needlessly due to an unusual adverse
reaction to a prescription drug combined with what may well have been an
insensitivity to that reaction on the part of his physician(s)." This is
what your claim has consistently been.
2. "Adverse reactions to common beneficial drugs such as aspirin and
penicillin have killed people before, and will continue to do so. It's
called 'bad luck.' This is clearly and indisputably true. See, for
example: http://tinyurl.com/c47k7 for penicillin and these for aspirin:
http://tinyurl.com/9ze8y and http://tinyurl.com/92xkj
3. Your reaction to your loved one's bad luck is to mount a campaign of
propaganda and disinformation against statin drugs akin to the opposition to
fluoridation of water; the chief difference being that bad teeth have the
potential for killing far fewer people than coronary artery disease." Now
in fairness, bad teeth are believed to kill their share of people. See, for
example, http://tinyurl.com/7kpjb But they are far from being a leading
cause of death; cardiovascular disease on the other hand is the leading
cause of death in women.
>
> The adverse effects from the Lipitor began almost immediately, and were
> reported to his doctor immediately.
Where did I state otherwise??
>
> The doctor, lacking full disclosure of statin adverse effects and their
> dangers ( this was prior to the Baycol voluntary recall), told his patient
> repeatedly to ignore the adverse effects and keep taking the statin or he
> would die from a heart attack.
In what way does that disagree with what I wrote ("Your loved one was
disabled needlessly due to an unusual adverse reaction to a prescription
drug combined with what may well have been an insensitivity to that reaction
on the part of his physician(s).") ???
>
> Pain? Keep taking Lipitor or you will die. Neuropathy? Tough it out,
> keep taking Lipitor or you will die. Memory loss? Haven't heard of it in
> relation to Lipitor, if it Alzheimer's there is no cure anyway, so FORGET
> IT, and keep taking Lipitor or you will die. CK over 10x normal at the
> threshold of rhabdomyolysis, ignore the pain and keep taking Lipitor or
> you will die. (no recognition that rhabdo can also make you die) Uh-oh,
> a specialist says the Lipitor may kill him? His memory now scores below
> the 1 percentile, this in a Corporate CEO? We have nothing to discuss,
> just hide the Lipitor pills from him.
What does that have to do with what I wrote??
>
> Every month the degree of intensity and the number of adverse effects
> grew. Every single month for 48 months. At the end of that time he was
> fully disabled, physically and cognitively.
What does that have to do with what I wrote??
>
> Because of the lack of disclosure about adverse effects at that time, the
> damage continued to grow.
Evidence that lack of disclosure, as opposed to lack of knowledge, caused
the damage to grow.
>
> This was not just bad luck, this was a direct result, not just of the
> drug's myotoxic, neurotoxic and brain-damaging propensities, but a direct
> result of a lack of available honest information on statin adverse
> effects.
Please learn to read and interpret what you read. "Bad luck" refers to your
husband's sensitivity to the statins (if in fact statins are the cause of
his condition). Alternatively, my total lack of side effects during more
than 10 years of statin therapy might be described as "good luck." The
difference is, however, precisely this: far, far fewer people have the
sensitivity to statins that your husband had (or may have had) than are
helped by statins. Thus, common human understanding is that being in the
small minority of those susceptible to injury is properly characterized as
"bad luck."
>
> This persists, as many of the statin trials simply withold information on
> adverse effects, others document known and acknowledged PI-listed adverse
> effects in the "unrelated" category.
Your posts present no evidence of this, but even if they did, there is still
no demonstration of anything untrue in what I wrote.
>
> My posts center on the awareness of adverse effects.
That's the understatement of the year.
>
> The motivation is obvious.
Yes. You are hurt, angry and frustrated by the misfortune that has befallen
your husband. So you have no compunction about causing equal or greater
damage to a far larger number of people by scaring them off statin therapy
and/or interfering with the continued research into improved statins.
>
> If they offend you, don't read them.
I'll read what I wish to, thank you very much. And call folks on b.s. every
time.
listener
news:d7s4g11k0iq815qiq...@4ax.com:
> I see you have decided not to seek medical advice on your problems.
> I think you are taking a big chance to diagnose yourself based on
> what you read in a newsgroup. There could be other reasons and
> perhaps you could be helped. But you will never know if you don't
> bother to see doctors about the problems.
>
> It is interesting and informative to discuss medical problems with
> lay people, but only proper medical examination, tests, and so forth
> can give answers.
>
> I suspected statins might be at the root of my recent medical
> problems, but I did see doctors and learned otherwise. And now have
> some hope of remedying the situation and have experienced a fair
> amount of relief in a short period of time. How happy I am I didn't
> assume statins were the cause of my problem.
>
Jason is a happy, content, naïve little clam who loves extolling the
misguided posts of others.
L.
Jason
<nita...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:17:41 -0700, ja...@nospam.com (Jason) wrote:
>
> I see you have decided not to seek medical advice on your problems.
> I think you are taking a big chance to diagnose yourself based on
> what you read in a newsgroup. There could be other reasons and perhaps
> you could be helped. But you will never know if you don't bother to
> see doctors about the problems.
>
> It is interesting and informative to discuss medical problems with
> lay people, but only proper medical examination, tests, and so forth
> can give answers.
>
> I suspected statins might be at the root of my recent medical problems,
> but I did see doctors and learned otherwise. And now have some hope of
> remedying the situation and have experienced a fair amount of relief
> in a short period of time. How happy I am I didn't assume statins were
> the cause of my problem.
Rita,
Great news. I finally have a new doctor. I lost trust in my last doctor.
My new doctor is a board certified internist. I am hoping that he will
arrange for me to get the blood tests and urine tests needed to determine
whether or not I have kidney or liver problems. I do read newsgroup posts
but I have also read a book related to the liver and another book related
to the kidneys. Both books were written by medical doctors that are
specialists in their fields. I have learned a lot from those books.
Sharon Hope
"Rita" <nita...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d7s4g11k0iq815qiq...@4ax.com...
> I think you are taking a big chance to diagnose yourself based on
> what you read in a newsgroup. There could be other reasons and perhaps
> you could be helped. But you will never know if you don't bother to
> see doctors about the problems.
>
> It is interesting and informative to discuss medical problems with
> lay people, but only proper medical examination, tests, and so forth
> can give answers.
>
> I suspected statins might be at the root of my recent medical problems,
> but I did see doctors and learned otherwise. And now have some hope of
> remedying the situation and have experienced a fair amount of relief
> in a short period of time. How happy I am I didn't assume statins were
> the cause of my problem.
Exactly correct - that is why my husband was in for specialist consultations
and major testing over 52 times in just one 12 month period. Specialists
were practicing and published department heads of major medical school
universities, with impeccable credentials.
Don Kirkman
>In article <1ai4g156pl8qbarq3...@4ax.com>,
> Don Kirkman <don...@covad.net> wrote:
>> semiliteracy
>What is it?
Unless I've misspelled, it's a symptom of a population that falls short
of full literacy; they may have been exposed to it but they haven't
absorbed it. Our current US educational system seems to be rife with
it. In part I attribute that to training teachers *how* to teach
instead of *what* to teach--putting technique ahead of solid content.
There are other societal causes as well, none of which relate to
cardiology except to the extent caregivers and researches fall short.
--
Don Kirkman
Bill
Did your other Dr. not do liver function tests?
Tell us the results either way. Good luck.
Bill
listener
news:2aa5g11obo6q6v8aj...@4ax.com:
> What is the message you are giving me, Sharon? That there are
> doctors who can correctly diagnose and treat my problem or that
> I could see 52 doctors over a year and still find out that only
> statins could be the cause of my problem? Methinks you speak with
> some confusion, here. And methinks you would be far happier if I
> found that statins were the cause of my problem rather than something
> entirely different. Perhaps I should dispense with doctors entirely
> since some people are not diagnosed correctly some of the time?
> So perhaps you can clarify what you are really saying above.
>>
>
Good point, Rita. Stick with it - I think you're getting to something
important. What is the message, indeed? It's at this point that Sharon
usually opines that your statin is causing your "aggressive" behavior
towards her or she comes back with a non-sequitor like "That is simply
not true". Let's see what she does....
What *is* the message?
L.
L.
Robert
Try this
ACC/AHA/NHLBI Clinical Advisory on the Use and Safety of Statins
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/full/106/8/1024?ijkey=H1oNetnsJYDRo
Robert
It should make your lawsuit a breeze then. All the department heads of major
medical schools, how much did you get in damages? Your husband was written
up in all the medical journals then it was well researched so how much did
you get for his care in damages?
Jason
<x...@yy.zz> wrote:
Bill,
Thanks for the encouragement and support. I had to beg my doctor to do a
CK test. She finally agreed to arrange for the test. The number was 94
(reference was 38--174). She refused to arrange for several other blood
tests that I requested. I'm hoping that my new doctor will arrange for the
tests that I need in order to determine if I am having any liver or kidney
problems. I'll post the results of those tests.
Jason
Sharon Hope
> doctors who can correctly diagnose and treat my problem or that
> I could see 52 doctors over a year and still find out that only
> statins could be the cause of my problem? Methinks you speak with
> some confusion, here. And methinks you would be far happier if I
> found that statins were the cause of my problem rather than something
> entirely different. Perhaps I should dispense with doctors entirely
> since some people are not diagnosed correctly some of the time?
> So perhaps you can clarify what you are really saying above.
>>
>
I was agreeing with you that you do not assume, you see a doctor.
The constellation of adverse effects from the statins was extensive in my
husband's case. No one specialist covers all the damage, and no one
specialist is expert in testing all that needed testing. There were a great
many other causes to rule out. Without a reliable baseline it would have
been impossible to measure improvement. It would also have put him at risk
whenever he saw a new doctor, who might have been working without knowing
all the damage.
I do, however, resent the implication that we kept going to doctors to get a
predetermined diagnosis.
He was in a very precarious health position, in hideous pain, and unable to
stand for even 4 minutes without collapsing on the floor. Each specialist
looked at his specialty and the internist worked as "quarterback" to
coordinate the team. Neurologist, mitochondrial specialist, DNA analyst,
brain surgeon, muscle biopsy specialist, nerve study expert neurologist,
neuropsych specialist, fronto-temporal dementia specialist, cardiologist,
interventional cardiology specialist, and, yes, statin expert, to name only
a few. (And that 52 did not include the weekly cognitive rehabilitation
therapy sessions with a rehabilitation specialist). He had extremely
serious symptoms in all of these areas and more, and I feared for his life.
It is not unheard of for a deadly cascade to start in a person that
debilitated in so many areas.
There was no way he could go to the appointments alone, partly because of
the aphasia, and because he could not remember the previous evening, could
not follow sequence (nor relate it to the doctor), and could not understand
a sentence beyond 7 words - due to such extreme short-term memory loss -
that he simply couldn't remember back to the start of the sentence after 7
words. Not being able to take a patient history makes it tough for a new
doctor to make a diagnosis.
I was and remain our only source of income, we had 2 kids in college, and I
had to take off work for each of these appointments and tests. I am paid
for the hours I work. Every single appointment cost us in lost income as
well as the cost of the appointment or test or procedure over and above
insurance.
If you somehow think that even one of the appointments was superfluous, you
are gravely wrong. We were fighting for his life.
Again, my post was to agree with you that you find out exactly what is
wrong - that is your only hope for a prognosis, and, if you are lucky, a
treatment that might halt the decline, and perhaps effect an improvement, if
not a restoration to health.
That his damage was due to Lipitor 10mg/day for 4 years has nothing to do
with your diagnosis.
Sharon Hope
> into my post. Of course I would go to as many doctors as necessary to
> find an answer to a medical problem. Especially if I had a condition
> like your husband's, in which he was in hideous pain and unable to
> stand. And had the neurologist I did go to not sensibly ordered an
> MRI which did disclose my problem, which is a very common one especially
> in people of my age, I would have continued to look for answers. It
> was not a diagnosis I anticipated because I admit I was spooked by the
> knowledge that statins can cause muscle pain and weakness. I told my
> doctor this and he said, in effect, let's see. Before assuming that we
> will do some tests because there are other possible causes. He did an
> examination and paid particular attention to how I described the pain
> and weakness. When I found out what I did have causing these symptoms
> I looked the condition up on the web and found the description of symptoms
> for spinal stenosis exactly described mine. That gave me some degree of
> confidence that the doctor had correctly diagnosed me. It is an annoying
> condition but not a life threatening one.
>
> Your husband's case is a worst case example, and situations occur in
> perhaps more people than we know of where the accurate diagnosis eludes
> even distinguished practitioners in the medical profession. And not
> just in the case of statin induced conditions.
>
> I was in my post referring to Jason, who seems to have a penchant for
> diagnosing himself without seeing any specialists. My suggestion to him
> in another post was to get on the stick and arrange to see them -- he
> had suggested administrative problems with his HMO was delaying this.
> When one is suffering and especially seeing deterioration as he suggests
> he is in both muscle strength and in memory, one would think he would
> move heaven and earth to try to get some authoritative answers. And
> depending on many things, I realize this is not always easy.
>
Thank you for straightening me out, I apologize for reading criticism into
your post. (You'd think I would have a thicker skin by now ;-)
I cannot speak for Jason, but in observing my husband, there was a period
where he would try to follow through on something, but could not. It was
almost like the movie groundhog day. He wanted to make handcrafted gifts
for the family for Christmas, as he usually did - starting many months
ahead, and would say in a surprised tone, wow, I'm really starting late, if
I don't get some materials today, I won't be able to finish by Christmas.
He would get the materials, and start on the project.
Then a few days later, he would say in a surprised tone, wow, I'm really
starting late, if I don't get some materials today, I won't be able to
finish by Christmas. He would get the materials, and start on the project.
repeat several times.
Finally, after a few months, he did manage to make some gifts.
Over a year after he stopped the Lipitor, he went into the garage and found
a set of uncompleted materials for the gifts he had made. Weeks later he
found another set. It turned out he found 5 or 6 sets of materials in
various states of completion. While on the Lipitor, he simply could not
form memories and had no idea he had not only purchased the materials, but
started on them over and over again.
Another example - we needed a new garden hose. He brought one home, then
became very upset and just went into the other room. Finally, he told
e --- he went out to attach it to the faucet, and there was a new hose
already attached. Then, he decided to put the new one in the garage as a
spare, and found 7 more new hoses there.
My point is, that statin cognitive damage makes it difficult or impossible
to follow through on a multi-step task. Like fighting a HMO to get a new
doctor to get an appointment to get diagnosis and treatment.
Mike would never have been able to set appointments and follow through in
that first year or two off the Lipitor, and his aphasia would have made it
almost impossible to communicate, and he would not have remembered the date
of the appointment, and days later, he would not have remembered even making
the appointment.
> I have said I don't think that at all. It may be that some persons can
> see
> 52 specialists and still no answers, but of course not doing anything at
> all as Jason writes has been his mode guarantees that one will never know
> if an answer is to be found.
>>
>>Again, my post was to agree with you that you find out exactly what is
>>wrong - that is your only hope for a prognosis, and, if you are lucky, a
>>treatment that might halt the decline, and perhaps effect an improvement,
>>if
>>not a restoration to health.
>
> I am hopeful that I can find a way to minimize the symptoms and learn to
> live with the problem although there is no cure. Surgery works for many
> but my doctor says that does not mean the condition won't reoccur as
> continued degeneration will continue. I am not considering surgery, nor
> is my doctor recommending it. I have found a minimal resumption of
> exercise has alleviated the symptoms. And a sensible, progressive
> exercise
> program will benefit me in many ways and along with anti-inflammatory
> meds hopefully will allow me to function pretty normally. At any rate,
> I won't know until I try. The doctor has given me encouragement to
> experiment with my plan. And certainly exercise will restore some
> muscle strength to areas where they have deteriorated through a far too
> sedentary lifestyle over the past year. And benefit my cardiovascular
> system as well. Ihave to be careful in choosing exercise that will not
> exacerate the problems in my spine.
>
> Just yesterday I discovered a fitness facility so close to my home that
> I can walk there in 3 minutes -- well equipped and remarkably cheap. I
> plan to go there regularly for brief sessions on a recumbent exercise
> bike and some well targeted weight work and stretching. And since it
> is so easy to get there, I won't be tempted to overdo in any one workout.
>>
>>That his damage was due to Lipitor 10mg/day for 4 years has nothing to do
>>with your diagnosis.
>
> Exactly. And what's more, I have no intention of resuming Zocor or any
> other statin. I've learned that any possible benefit for a woman of my
> age is so slight as to be insignificant. And I don't like to take any
> powerful drug if not absolutely necessary. Younger people and those with
> diagnosed heart disease might well make a different decision.
>>
>