UCSD Statin Study update

Quoted message said:

I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
hoping to begin putting research papers together over the
next month. As citations and information becomes available
it will be posted on their website:

medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I would caution anyone hearing or reading about apparent
"results" from this blinded study to wait until official
results are formally announced.

L.

Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently any
and all information they obtain over the internet.

Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
precaution, or other advice given by a person too ashamed to
use his own real name!!!!!!!

Have a nice week-end.

A.L.. . . . . . .... . . . . . . . . . .

. . .

. . . . . All that is, of course, assuming you are not using
Dr. Chung's Computer.

exerpt from the site... ~~ Cholesterol in the blood has been
shown to contribute to the development of heart disease, and
lowering of cholesterol, using cholesterol-lowering drugs,
reduces risk of heart disease. (This is especially true for
the type of cholesterol called "LDL-cholesterol", or "bad"
cholesterol; HDL-cholesterol, a different type, protects
against heart disease.) Studies have shown that certain
groups of people live longer by having LDL-cholesterol
lowered; this is understandable because lowering LDL-
cholesterol reduces risk of heart disease, and heart disease
is the leading cause of death. ~~

Cholesterol has only been associated with cardiovascular
disease. "contribute" implies a causative role, and in my
opinion is entirely false. The other side of this falsehood
is "cardiovascular disease contributes to cholesterol", but
is just as likely given our current level of understanding
of the association.

--
Winning against heart attack and stroke
sonoscore.comsonoscore.comOpen ↗

Al. Lohse said:

Quoted message said:

I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
hoping to begin putting research papers together over the
next month. As citations and information becomes
available it will be posted on their website:

medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I would caution anyone hearing or reading about apparent
"results" from this blinded study to wait until official
results are formally announced.

L.

Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently any
and all information they obtain over the internet.

Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
precaution, or other advice given by a person too ashamed
to use his own real name!!!!!!!

Have a nice week-end.

A.L..

Just passing along information rather than conjecture or
wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.

L.

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
hoping to begin putting research papers together over the
next month. As citations and information becomes available
it will be posted on their website:

medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I would caution anyone hearing or reading about apparent
"results" from this blinded study to wait until official
results are formally announced.

L.

Crow probably tastes about par with jackfish.

B'adant

(Zee) said:

[email hidden] wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
hoping to begin putting research papers together over the
next month. As citations and information becomes
available it will be posted on their website:

medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I would caution anyone hearing or reading about apparent
"results" from this blinded study to wait until official
results are formally announced.

L.

Crow probably tastes about par with jackfish.

B'adant

We're speaking in tongues, apparently.

Funny. Ha, ha.

L.

Quoted message said:

Al. Lohse said:

Quoted message said:

I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
hoping to begin putting research papers together over
the next month. As citations and information becomes
available it will be posted on their website:

medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗

I would caution anyone hearing or reading about
apparent "results" from this blinded study to wait
until official results are formally announced.

L.

Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently any
and all information they obtain over the internet.

Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
precaution, or other advice given by a person too ashamed
to use his own real name!!!!!!!

Have a nice week-end.

A.L..

Just passing along information rather than conjecture or
wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.

L.

Who's information are you passing on in, "I would caution
anyone... "?

Looks like your own, but nobody knows who you are!

A.L.

Al. Lohse said:

Quoted message said:

Al. Lohse said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>
> I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They are
> hoping to begin putting research papers together over
> the next month. As citations and information becomes
> available it will be posted on their website:
>
> medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>
> I would caution anyone hearing or reading about
> apparent "results" from this blinded study to wait
> until official results are formally announced.
>
> L.

Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently
any and all information they obtain over the internet.

Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
precaution, or other advice given by a person too
ashamed to use his own real name!!!!!!!

Have a nice week-end.

A.L..

Just passing along information rather than conjecture or
wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.

L.

Who's information are you passing on in, "I would caution
anyone... "?

Looks like your own, but nobody knows who you are!

A.L.

So now you want to discredit what I post because I prefer
anonymity. Nice lame try. I don't remember you discounting
Zee (MGF, Badant or whatever she wants to call herself...)
because of being anonymous. My "caution" was based on a post
by her that included a quote by Dr. Golomb, as reported by
the Wall Street Journal (follow that?) about the percentage
of a side-effect in the study- all before the study has been
formally closed and published.

But this is what happens when CAUSers are systematically
challenged. They grab at any straw they can to justify their
narrow view.

Ironically, the UCSD study is one that CAUSers anxiously
await, envisioning that it will justify and support their
notion that all statins are dangerous and should be taken
off the market.

I look forward to it also and really just posted the link as
a public service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.

L.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Al. Lohse said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:18:58 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>
>[email hidden] wrote:
>>
>> I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They
>> are hoping to

begin

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> putting research papers together over the next
>> month. As citations

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> information becomes available it will be posted on
>> their website:
>>
>> medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>>
>> I would caution anyone hearing or reading about
>> apparent "results" from this blinded study to wait
>> until official results are formally announced.
>>
>> L.
>
>Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently
>any and all information they obtain over the internet.
>
>Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
>precaution, or other advice given by a person too
>ashamed to use his own real name!!!!!!!
>
>Have a nice week-end.
>
>A.L..

Just passing along information rather than conjecture
or wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.

L.

Who's information are you passing on in, "I would caution
anyone... "?

Looks like your own, but nobody knows who you are!

A.L.

So now you want to discredit what I post because I prefer
anonymity. Nice lame try. I don't remember you discounting
Zee (MGF, Badant or whatever she wants to call herself...)
because of being anonymous. My "caution" was based on a
post by her that included a quote by Dr. Golomb, as
reported by the Wall Street Journal (follow that?) about
the percentage of a side-effect in the study- all before
the study has been formally closed and published.

But this is what happens when CAUSers are systematically
challenged. They grab at any straw they can to justify
their narrow view.

Ironically, the UCSD study is one that CAUSers anxiously
await, envisioning that it will justify and support their
notion that all statins are dangerous and should be taken
off the market.

I look forward to it also and really just posted the link
as a public service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little bit
worse than you state.

I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
absolutely no problems with side effects, and they are doing
their job. As a heart attack survivor, my cardiologist and
my endocrinologist both want my LDL below 100, per the
American Heart Association guidelines, and my HDL/Total
cholesterol ratio to be where the AHA guidelines state that
it should be.

Even with what I regard as more than moderate exercising
(30+ minutes of aerobics daily, weight training 3 times a
week) and a very low fat, very low cholesterol diet, neither
of those targets is easily obtainable _by me_ without
statins, particularly the 1st. Not even if I eat oatmeal
every day.
🙂

I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding that there are side effects. I was told of the
side effects by both the prescribing physician, and by the
information provided by the manufacturer of the prescribed
drug. The side effects that were publicized when the drug
was released and at the time that it was prescribed for me
may not have included side effects that surfaced later;
anyone with an IQ above that of the average salamander
understands that. One risks side effects, period, when
taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to decide whether
the risk is worth the potential reward.

Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to grind.
Often, a loved one has displayed adverse health symptoms,
and often (but not always), it has been determined to be the
result of a given statin. That's a damned shame, and all
involved have my sympathy. But pretending that this somehow
demonstrates that statins are bad for everyone, the folks
who manufacture and sell them are evil, the doctors who
prescribe them are in league with the evil folks, and that
statins should be removed from the list of approved drugs so
that we can all go on cult diets and use herbal remedies
liberally seasoned with folklore, is an overreaction, that
has the potential to injure far more people than will ever
be injured by the side effects of statins.

Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company or
business that advertises or otherwise assists in the
manufacture, distribution or sale of any drug. I am not a
medical professional, or in any way associated with the
medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't practice
privately. And I am not anonymous.

Steve Marcus
--
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

Quoted message said:

L.

Steve Marcus said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Al. Lohse said:

[email hidden] wrote:
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:18:58 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
> <[email hidden]> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >[email hidden] wrote:
> >>
> >> I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They
> >> are hoping to

begin

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> putting research papers together over the next
> >> month. As citations

and

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> information becomes available it will be posted on
> >> their website:
> >>
> >> medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
> >>
> >> I would caution anyone hearing or reading about
> >> apparent "results" from this blinded study to wait
> >> until official results are formally announced.
> >>
> >> L.
> >
> >Firstly, Listener, people should verify
> >independently any and all information they obtain
> >over the internet.
> >
> >Secondly, people should never even consider a
> >caution, precaution, or other advice given by a
> >person too ashamed to use his own real name!!!!!!!
> >
> >Have a nice week-end.
> >
> >A.L..
>
> Just passing along information rather than conjecture
> or wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.
>
> L.

Who's information are you passing on in, "I would
caution anyone... "?

Looks like your own, but nobody knows who you are!

A.L.

So now you want to discredit what I post because I
prefer anonymity. Nice lame try. I don't remember you
discounting Zee (MGF, Badant or whatever she wants to
call herself...) because of being anonymous. My
"caution" was based on a post by her that included a
quote by Dr. Golomb, as reported by the Wall Street
Journal (follow that?) about the percentage of a side-
effect in the study- all before the study has been
formally closed and published.

But this is what happens when CAUSers are systematically
challenged. They grab at any straw they can to justify
their narrow view.

Ironically, the UCSD study is one that CAUSers anxiously
await, envisioning that it will justify and support
their notion that all statins are dangerous and should
be taken off the market.

I look forward to it also and really just posted the
link as a public service. Your reply speaks volumes.
Grow up.

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little bit
worse than you state.

I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
absolutely no problems with side effects, and they are
doing their job. As a heart attack survivor, my
cardiologist and my endocrinologist both want my LDL below
100, per the American Heart Association guidelines, and my
HDL/Total cholesterol ratio to be where the AHA guidelines
state that it should be.

Even with what I regard as more than moderate exercising
(30+ minutes of aerobics daily, weight training 3 times a
week) and a very low fat, very low cholesterol diet,
neither of those targets is easily obtainable _by me_
without statins, particularly the 1st. Not even if I eat
oatmeal every day.
🙂

I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding that there are side effects. I was told of
the side effects by both the prescribing physician, and
by the information provided by the manufacturer of the
prescribed drug. The side effects that were publicized
when the drug was released and at the time that it was
prescribed for me may not have included side effects
that surfaced later; anyone with an IQ above that of the
average salamander understands that. One risks side
effects, period, when taking the drugs. Everyone should
be free to decide whether the risk is worth the
potential reward.

Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to grind.
Often, a loved one has displayed adverse health symptoms,
and often (but not always), it has been determined to be
the result of a given statin. That's a damned shame, and
all involved have my sympathy. But pretending that this
somehow demonstrates that statins are bad for everyone,
the folks who manufacture and sell them are evil, the
doctors who prescribe them are in league with the evil
folks, and that statins should be removed from the list of
approved drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use
herbal remedies liberally seasoned with folklore, is an
overreaction, that has the potential to injure far more
people than will ever be injured by the side effects of
statins.

Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company or
business that advertises or otherwise assists in the
manufacture, distribution or sale of any drug. I am not a
medical professional, or in any way associated with the
medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't practice
privately. And I am not anonymous.

Steve Marcus

Thank you for standing up for the truth, Steve :-)

Servant to the humblest person in the universe,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
heartmdphd.comheartmdphd.comOpen ↗

**
Who is the humblest person in the universe?
makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

What is all this about?
makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

Is this spam?
makeashorterlink.commakeashorterlink.comOpen ↗

Quoted message said:

Al. Lohse said:

Quoted message said:

On Fri, 19 Mar 2004 16:18:58 -0800, "Al. Lohse"
<[email hidden]> wrote:

>
>
>[email hidden] wrote:
>>
>> I spoke briefly to Dr. Golomb's office today. They
>> are hoping to begin putting research papers together
>> over the next month. As citations and information
>> becomes available it will be posted on their
>> website:
>>
>> medicine.ucsd.eduindex.htmOpen ↗
>>
>> I would caution anyone hearing or reading about
>> apparent "results" from this blinded study to wait
>> until official results are formally announced.
>>
>> L.
>
>Firstly, Listener, people should verify independently
>any and all information they obtain over the internet.
>
>Secondly, people should never even consider a caution,
>precaution, or other advice given by a person too
>ashamed to use his own real name!!!!!!!
>
>Have a nice week-end.
>
>A.L..

Just passing along information rather than conjecture
or wild assupmtions based on anectodal information.

L.

Who's information are you passing on in, "I would caution
anyone... "?

Looks like your own, but nobody knows who you are!

A.L.

So now you want to discredit what I post because I prefer
anonymity. Nice lame try. I don't remember you discounting
Zee (MGF, Badant or whatever she wants to call herself...)
because of being anonymous. My "caution" was based on a
post by her that included a quote by Dr. Golomb, as
reported by the Wall Street Journal (follow that?) about
the percentage of a side-effect in the study- all before
the study has been formally closed and published.

I do not "want to discredit" what you post. I only wanted
to comment that advice from an anonymous poster is more
worthless than advice from a poster whose identity can be
verified. And, I certainly would not take any advice from
anyone posting to news groups anyway. It cannot be
reliable. Your "caution" is ignored by me. as it should be
by everyone else.

Quoted message said:

But this is what happens when CAUSers are systematically
challenged. They grab at any straw they can to justify
their narrow view.

I see no systematic challenge. The cholesterol dichotomy is
as strong as ever. Two camps. It continues because
cholesterol believers can not or will not confront
cholesterol scientists. I lean toward the findings and
analyses of the scientists. Scientific skepticism is
extremely important. You are encouraged, even by them, to
show them the error of their ways. You are not doing that.
You are ignoring them. What are we to conclude from that?
Are you afraid of what you might find?

Quoted message said:

Ironically, the UCSD study is one that CAUSers anxiously
await, envisioning that it will justify and support their
notion that all statins are dangerous and should be taken
off the market.

There is never any irony in the truth. Statins do not do
much good, but they can do enormous harm, like DEATH and
vegetation. In future it is likely to be discovered that
cholesterol concentration modifications caused by statins
are an unwanted side effect, that their slight benefit
derives from non-cholesterol considerations.

Quoted message said:

I look forward to it also and really just posted the link
as a public service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.

L.

Encouraging people not to take the advice of an Anonymous
Internet Dude, an AID, is a sign of immaturity? Where? In
Atlanta? I think people can make up their own minds as to
who needs to grow up. Pretty naughty, L, pretty
naughty.naughty.naughty.naughty.

If you want to demonstrate your maturity, take a plunge and
critique the writings of the cholesterol skeptics. I think
ignoring their points of view is an indication of scientific
immaturity.

A.L.

"Statins may also cause cognitive problems."

Steve Marcus said:

Quoted message said:

I look forward to it also and really just posted the
link as a public service. Your reply speaks volumes.
Grow up.

Quoted message said:

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little bit
worse than you state.

What is even a bit worse than he states?

Quoted message said:

I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
absolutely no problems with side effects, and they are
doing their job. As a heart attack survivor, my
cardiologist and my endocrinologist both want my LDL below
100, per the American Heart Association guidelines, and my
HDL/Total cholesterol ratio to be where the AHA guidelines
state that it should be.

Do you know of any science behind that 100 target?

No?

I have posted to this group that it is, in fact, a matter of
belief and not science.

Who would instill such a belief? Priests? Truck drivers?
Police? Lawyers? Indian Chiefs?

Quoted message said:

Even with what I regard as more than moderate exercising
(30+ minutes of aerobics daily, weight training 3 times a
week) and a very low fat, very low cholesterol diet,
neither of those targets is easily obtainable _by me_
without statins, particularly the 1st. Not even if I eat
oatmeal every day.
🙂

Why would you eat a low fat, low cholesterol diet when in
Framingham they found that those who ate the most fat and
cholesterol had the lowest serum cholesterol. So, where is
the science behind the low fat, low cholesterol diet? Is it
also a matter of belief?

Quoted message said:

I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding that there are side effects. I was told of
the side effects by both the prescribing physician, and
by the information provided by the manufacturer of the
prescribed drug. The side effects that were publicized
when the drug was released and at the time that it was
prescribed for me may not have included side effects
that surfaced later; anyone with an IQ above that of the
average salamander understands that. One risks side
effects, period, when taking the drugs. Everyone should
be free to decide whether the risk is worth the
potential reward.

You are fortunate that your physicians warned you. In the
case of Sharon Hope's husband, drug therapy was continued
despite the emergence of side effects. Mrs. Hope had to do
her own research into the damage of her husband. The
physicians were of no help.

Quoted message said:

Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to grind.
Often, a loved one has displayed adverse health symptoms,
and often (but not always), it has been determined to be
the result of a given statin. That's a damned shame, and
all involved have my sympathy. But pretending that this
somehow demonstrates that statins are bad for everyone,
the folks who manufacture and sell them are evil, the
doctors who prescribe them are in league with the evil
folks, and that statins should be removed from the list of
approved drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use
herbal remedies liberally seasoned with folklore, is an
overreaction, that has the potential to injure far more
people than will ever be injured by the side effects of
statins.

Do you disbelieve that manufacturers are in it for the
money, drugs are sold like used cars, that clinical data
can be altered, that medical articles can be "ghost"
written, etc.?

You are confusing me with someone else. The fact is that
pharmaceuticals are not as safe as they could be. The statin
drugs are simply a major example of that fact. Would not be
surprised that despite the billions paid out by Bayer for
Baycol, they still made a net profit on that enterprise.
Dead and injured and money in the bank.

Quoted message said:

Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company or
business that advertises or otherwise assists in the
manufacture, distribution or sale of any drug. I am not a
medical professional, or in any way associated with the
medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't practice
privately. And I am not anonymous.

Because, "Statins may also cause cognitive problems." you
are on the side of taking advice (a caution) from an
Anonymous Internet Dude, an AID. Doubt Perry Mason (MHRIP)
would ever take an AID seriously.

Always thought lawyers had superior linguistic analytical
abilities. You, apparently, no longer possess such
abilities. Wonder why.

I'll not spell it out. Life is a balancing act. The
English might say, what is gained on the swings is lost on
the round-about.

Best of luck with your heart health, Steve Marcus. We ARE
all in this together.

Regards,
A.L.

Al makes a very interesting point, and one that raises a
familiar cord.

There is an excellent attorney who specializes in Social
Security Disability cases. He is very selective, pre-
screening his clients for those with legitimate
disabilities, including statin damage and fibromyalgia.

Only half in jest, he related an experience at a lawyers'
confab, where all the other attorneys in the room claimed
to be on the strongest of the statins, as if they thought
that gave them an advantage. He considers the fact that he
is not on Lipitor (but is on one of the older, lower
dosage statins) one of his notable qualifications, in
addition to his excellent record in successfully
representing his clients.

Perhaps some of his colleagues will number among his statin-
disabled clientele soon... not that I wish that horrific
adverse effect on anyone.

The public would do well to seriously consider the potential
for episodes of transient global amnesia and short-term
memory loss in selecting an attorney. Read Dr. Graveline's
excellent book, Lipitor, Thief of Memory. It will make you
also think twice about the pilot of your airliner, the taxi
driver, your children's bus driver, etc.

Finally, BTW, there is a study to find out who is more
likely to get the adverse effects, and how long they take
to resolve:

"Reversibility" of changes, if any, at 2 months
postcessation will be determined. If effects (favorable or
unfavorable) are identified, we will seek to ascertain
whether there are baseline variables that predict who will
be most susceptible to these favorable or adverse
noncardiac effects (i.e., effect modification)." ww-ww-Open ↗
w.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubme-
d&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=15020036 Control Clin Trials.
2004 Apr;25(2):178-202. The UCSD Statin Study: a randomized
controlled trial assessing the impact of statins on
selected noncardiac outcomes.

Golomb BA, Criqui MH, White HL, Dimsdale JE.

Department of Economics, University of California, San
Diego, CA, USA.

There has been persistent controversy regarding possible
favorable or adverse effects of statins or of cholesterol
reduction on cognition, mood and behavior (including
aggressive or violent behavior), muscle function, and
quality of life. The UCSD Statin Study seeks to ascertain
the beneficial or adverse effects of statin cholesterol-
lowering drugs on a set of noncardiac endpoints, including
cognition, behavior, and serotonin biochemistry. The study
will enroll 1000 subjects (minimum 20% female) of mixed
ethnicity from San Diego. Subjects must be age 20 and older,
postmenopausal if female, without known cardiovascular
disease or diabetes, and with LDL-cholesterol between 115
and 190 mg/dl. Subjects will be randomized to a double-
blind, placebo-controlled trial with assignment 1/3,
1/3, 1/3 to placebo, simvastatin 20 mg, or pravastatin 40 mg
(equipotent LDL-cholesterol-lowering doses for drug arms
with simvastatin and pravastatin chosen to represent the
extremes of the lipophilicity spectrum) for 6 months of
treatment followed by 2 months postcessation follow-up.
Primary outcomes are cognition (cognitive battery),
irritability/aggression (behavior measure), and serotonin
(gauged by whole blood serotonin), assessed as the
difference between baseline and 6 months, judging combined
statin groups vs. placebo. Secondary outcomes include mood
(CES-D and Wakefield depression inventory), quality of
life (SF-12V), sleep (Leeds sleep scale, modified), and
secondary aggression measures (Conflict Tactics Scale;
Overt Aggression Scale, Modified). Cardiovascular
reactivity will be examined in a 10% subset. As additional
secondary endpoints, primary and selected secondary
outcomes will be assessed by statin assignment (lipophilic
simvastatin vs. hydrophilic pravastatin). "Reversibility"
of changes, if any, at 2 months postcessation will be
determined. If effects (favorable or unfavorable) are
identified, we will seek to ascertain whether there are
baseline variables that predict who will be most
susceptible to these favorable or adverse noncardiac
effects (i.e., effect modification).

PMID: 15020036 [PubMed - in process]

"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Statins may also cause cognitive problems."

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I am a lawyer, but don't practice privately. And I am
not anonymous.

Because, "Statins may also cause cognitive problems." you
are on the side of taking advice (a caution) from an
Anonymous Internet Dude, an AID. Doubt Perry Mason (MHRIP)
would ever take an AID seriously.

Always thought lawyers had superior linguistic analytical
abilities. You, apparently, no longer possess such
abilities. Wonder why.

I'll not spell it out. Life is a balancing act. The
English might say, what is gained on the swings is lost on
the round-about.

Best of luck with your heart health, Steve Marcus. We ARE
all in this together.

Regards,
A.L.

"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Statins may also cause cognitive problems."

Steve Marcus said:

Quoted message said:

I look forward to it also and really just posted the
link as a public service. Your reply speaks volumes.
Grow up.

Quoted message said:

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little
bit worse than

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

state.

What is even a bit worse than he states?

Quoted message said:

I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
absolutely no

problems

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with side effects, and they are doing their job. As a
heart attack survivor, my cardiologist and my
endocrinologist both want my LDL below

100,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

per the American Heart Association guidelines, and my
HDL/Total

cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ratio to be where the AHA guidelines state that it
should be.

Do you know of any science behind that 100 target?

No?

I have posted to this group that it is, in fact, a matter
of belief and not science.

Who would instill such a belief? Priests? Truck drivers?
Police? Lawyers? Indian Chiefs?

What's worse, sir, is that you sir, are not only full of
manure, you are dishonest into the bargain. As to the
latter, where is your rebuttable of my comments on the
article that supports what _you_ believe? It is
conspicuously absent, isn't it.

As to the former, what I believe, it is supported by an
overwhelming number of studies. Let us not pretend that it
is your belief that is in the mainstream.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even with what I regard as more than moderate exercising
(30+ minutes of aerobics daily, weight training 3 times
a week) and a very low fat, very

low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cholesterol diet, neither of those targets is easily
obtainable _by me_ without statins, particularly the
1st. Not even if I eat oatmeal every

day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

🙂

Why would you eat a low fat, low cholesterol diet when in
Framingham they found that those who ate the most fat and
cholesterol had the lowest serum cholesterol. So, where is
the science behind the low fat, low cholesterol diet? Is
it also a matter of belief?

Because my metabolism, and my body chemistry resulting
therefrom, governs what I need to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there are side effects. I was told of the side effects
by both the prescribing physician, and by the
information provided by the

manufacturer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the prescribed drug. The side effects that were
publicized when the

drug

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was released and at the time that it was prescribed for
me may not have included side effects that surfaced
later; anyone with an IQ above that

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the average salamander understands that. One risks side
effects,

period,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to decide
whether the

risk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is worth the potential reward.

You are fortunate that your physicians warned you. In the
case of Sharon Hope's husband, drug therapy was continued
despite the emergence of side effects. Mrs. Hope had to do
her own research into the damage of her husband. The
physicians were of no help.

So sue Sharon Hope's husband's physicians, and leave your
goddam hands off of my statins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to grind.
Often, a loved

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has displayed adverse health symptoms, and often (but
not always), it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been determined to be the result of a given statin.
That's a damned

shame,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and all involved have my sympathy. But pretending that
this somehow demonstrates that statins are bad for
everyone, the folks who

manufacture

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and sell them are evil, the doctors who prescribe them
are in league

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the evil folks, and that statins should be removed from
the list of

approved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use herbal
remedies

liberally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seasoned with folklore, is an overreaction, that has the
potential to

injure

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

far more people than will ever be injured by the side
effects of

statins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you disbelieve that manufacturers are in it for the
money, drugs are sold like used cars, that clinical data
can be altered, that medical articles can be "ghost"
written, etc.?

No. I believe that the major drug manufacturers are all
Communists and should donate their mental, physical and
monetary resources to society for free. Not. Come off your
high horse Al, and show me support for your position that I,
as a layman in terms of medicine, can't rebut in five
minutes after a single reading. You won't because you can't.

Quoted message said:

You are confusing me with someone else. The fact is that
pharmaceuticals are not as safe as they could be. The
statin drugs are simply a major example of that fact.
Would not be surprised that despite the billions paid out
by Bayer for Baycol, they still made a net profit on that
enterprise. Dead and injured and money in the bank.

I'm not confusing you with anyone else. Wolves run
with wolves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company or
business that advertises or otherwise assists in the
manufacture, distribution or sale

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any drug. I am not a medical professional, or in any way
associated

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't
practice privately.

And I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am not anonymous.

Because, "Statins may also cause cognitive problems." you
are on the side of taking advice (a caution) from an
Anonymous Internet Dude, an AID. Doubt Perry Mason (MHRIP)
would ever take an AID seriously.

Is the inability to read and understand something that you
were born with?? I explained fully, in the post that you
responded to. In short what part of this sounds like I'm
taking advice from an AID?

"I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding that there are side effects. I was told of the
side effects by both the prescribing physician, and by the
information provided by the manufacturer of the prescribed
drug. The side effects that were publicized when the drug
was released and at the time that it was prescribed for me
may not have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

included side effects that surfaced later; anyone with
an IQ above that

of the average salamander understands that. One risks
side effects, period, when taking the drugs. Everyone
should be free to decide whether the risk is worth the
potential reward."

Quoted message said:

Always thought lawyers had superior linguistic analytical
abilities. You, apparently, no longer possess such
abilities. Wonder why.

Linguistics is the study of the history of languages. What
would that have to do with lawyers? As to logic, something
that is rather helpful to lawyers, read my post (as opposed
to snipping it without indicating the edit). Your lack of a
rebuttal to what I wrote demonstrates that logic isn't
something that you appear to be capable of.

Quoted message said:

I'll not spell it out. Life is a balancing act. The
English might say, what is gained on the swings is lost on
the round-about.

Best of luck with your heart health, Steve Marcus. We ARE
all in this together.

Regards,
A.L.

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

I guess I should have added that the attorney I mentioned
who was proud of taking the less potent statin was not given
to sudden rage, either.

"Steve Marcus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2Jq7c.28600$272.15189@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Statins may also cause cognitive problems."

Steve Marcus said:

>
> I look forward to it also and really just posted the
> link as a

public

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.

Quoted message said:

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little
bit worse than

you

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

state.

What is even a bit worse than he states?

Quoted message said:

I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
absolutely no

problems

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

with side effects, and they are doing their job. As a
heart attack survivor, my cardiologist and my
endocrinologist both want my LDL

below

Quoted message said:

100,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

per the American Heart Association guidelines, and my
HDL/Total

cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ratio to be where the AHA guidelines state that it
should be.

Do you know of any science behind that 100 target?

No?

I have posted to this group that it is, in fact, a
matter of belief and not science.

Who would instill such a belief? Priests? Truck drivers?
Police? Lawyers? Indian Chiefs?

What's worse, sir, is that you sir, are not only full of
manure, you are dishonest into the bargain. As to the
latter, where is your rebuttable of my comments on the
article that supports what _you_ believe? It is
conspicuously absent, isn't it.

As to the former, what I believe, it is supported by an
overwhelming

number

Quoted message said:

of studies. Let us not pretend that it is your belief that
is in the mainstream.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Even with what I regard as more than moderate
exercising (30+ minutes

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

aerobics daily, weight training 3 times a week) and a
very low fat,

very

Quoted message said:

low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

cholesterol diet, neither of those targets is easily
obtainable _by

me_

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

without statins, particularly the 1st. Not even if I
eat oatmeal

every

Quoted message said:

day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

🙂

Why would you eat a low fat, low cholesterol diet when
in Framingham they found that those who ate the most fat
and cholesterol had the lowest serum cholesterol. So,
where is the science behind the low fat, low cholesterol
diet? Is it also a matter of belief?

Because my metabolism, and my body chemistry resulting
therefrom, governs what I need to do.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes
open, understanding

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

there are side effects. I was told of the side effects
by both the prescribing physician, and by the
information provided by the

manufacturer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of the prescribed drug. The side effects that were
publicized when

the

Quoted message said:

drug

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was released and at the time that it was prescribed
for me may not

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

included side effects that surfaced later; anyone with
an IQ above

that

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the average salamander understands that. One risks
side effects,

period,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

when taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to
decide whether the

risk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

is worth the potential reward.

You are fortunate that your physicians warned you. In
the case of Sharon Hope's husband, drug therapy was
continued despite the emergence of side effects. Mrs.
Hope had to do her own research into the damage of her
husband. The physicians were of no help.

So sue Sharon Hope's husband's physicians, and leave your
goddam hands off of my statins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to
grind. Often, a

loved

Quoted message said:

one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

has displayed adverse health symptoms, and often (but
not always), it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been determined to be the result of a given statin.
That's a damned

shame,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and all involved have my sympathy. But pretending that
this somehow demonstrates that statins are bad for
everyone, the folks who

manufacture

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

and sell them are evil, the doctors who prescribe them
are in league

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the evil folks, and that statins should be removed
from the list of

approved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use
herbal remedies

liberally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

seasoned with folklore, is an overreaction, that has
the potential to

injure

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

far more people than will ever be injured by the side
effects of

statins.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Do you disbelieve that manufacturers are in it for the
money, drugs are sold like used cars, that clinical data
can be altered, that medical articles can be "ghost"
written, etc.?

No. I believe that the major drug manufacturers are all
Communists and should donate their mental, physical and
monetary resources to society for free. Not. Come off
your high horse Al, and show me support for your position
that I, as a layman in terms of medicine, can't rebut in
five minutes after a single reading. You won't because
you can't.

Quoted message said:

You are confusing me with someone else. The fact is that
pharmaceuticals are not as safe as they could be. The
statin drugs are simply a major example of that fact.
Would not be surprised that despite the billions paid
out by Bayer for Baycol, they still made a net profit on
that enterprise. Dead and injured and money in the bank.

I'm not confusing you with anyone else. Wolves run
with wolves.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company or
business that advertises or otherwise assists in the
manufacture, distribution or

sale

Quoted message said:

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

any drug. I am not a medical professional, or in any
way associated

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't
practice privately.

And I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

am not anonymous.

Because, "Statins may also cause cognitive problems."
you are on the side of taking advice (a caution) from an
Anonymous Internet Dude, an AID. Doubt Perry Mason
(MHRIP) would ever take an AID seriously.

Is the inability to read and understand something that you
were born

with??

Quoted message said:

I explained fully, in the post that you responded to. In
short what part

of

Quoted message said:

this sounds like I'm taking advice from an AID?

"I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes open,
understanding

that

Quoted message said:

there are side effects. I was told of the side effects by
both the prescribing physician, and by the information
provided by the manufacturer of the prescribed drug. The
side effects that were publicized when the

drug

Quoted message said:

was released and at the time that it was prescribed for me
may not have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

included side effects that surfaced later; anyone with
an IQ above

that

Quoted message said:

of the average salamander understands that. One risks side
effects,

period,

Quoted message said:

when taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to decide
whether the risk is worth the potential reward."

Quoted message said:

Always thought lawyers had superior linguistic
analytical abilities. You, apparently, no longer possess
such abilities. Wonder why.

Linguistics is the study of the history of languages. What
would that

have

Quoted message said:

to do with lawyers? As to logic, something that is rather
helpful to lawyers, read my post (as opposed to snipping
it without indicating the edit). Your lack of a rebuttal
to what I wrote demonstrates that logic isn't something
that you appear to be capable of.

Quoted message said:

I'll not spell it out. Life is a balancing act. The
English might say, what is gained on the swings is lost
on the round-about.

Best of luck with your heart health, Steve Marcus. We
ARE all in this together.

Regards,
A.L.

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

"Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TTs7c.55336$1p.927673@attbi_s54...

Quoted message said:

I guess I should have added that the attorney I mentioned
who was proud of taking the less potent statin was not
given to sudden rage, either.

And where, my dear lady, is _your_ rebuttal of my analysis
of the information posted here:

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗

and

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

Leaving aside the small matter of the fact that it's my
health that you are trying to effect with you crusade
against statins, what you consider to be "sudden rage" is
simply a normal reaction to trying to have a discussion
with people who post things, but are unable to defend
what they've posted or to even discuss those things on
the merits.

I understand that you have a loved one whom you believe to
have been injured by statins. Had you and/or he devoted
1/1,000 of the effort that you are devoting to scaring
people here without justification to simply finding out,
before the fact, about the side effects of the statin that
you blame for the problem and then pushing the doctor(s)
involved to giving a damn about what you believe they were
doing to your loved one, perhaps things might have been
different.

That they are not is no reason to latch on to studies that
hide within enormous amounts of nitpicking caveats the core
facts that statins are effective for doing what they are
claimed to do (prevent heart attacks), are advertised as
coming with side effects that can rear their ugly heads in
a small minority of people using them, and that people who
take them need to be very aware of these side effects, what
to do if they suspect that they have occurred, and how to
deal with a doctor who, _for any reason and certainly not
limited to the statin issue_, will not take sufficient time
to listen to and act upon problems that their patients
bring to them.

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 numeral3

What's curious about Ravnskov's ideas is that the
considerable bibliography which he lists in support of his
analysis of statins are nearly all by Ravnskov himself.
Where are critiques of his position by experts such as De
Lorgeril or James Weiss ?

Thus I take what he proposes with more than a grain of
skepticism ;-) *

liaM

"Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<TTs7c.55336$1p.927673@attbi_s54>...

Quoted message said:

I guess I should have added that the attorney I mentioned
who was proud of taking the less potent statin was not
given to sudden rage, either.

"Steve Marcus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:2Jq7c.28600$272.15189@lakeread03...

Quoted message said:

"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"Statins may also cause cognitive problems."

Steve Marcus wrote:
>
> >
> > I look forward to it also and really just posted
> > the link as a

public

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> > service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.

Steve said:

Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a little bit
worse than you state.

Al said: What is even a bit worse than he states?

Yes Steve. Tell us, what is "even a little bit worse than
{he} states? And don't forget your disclaimer.

b'adant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> I have been on statins for over 8 years. I have had
> absolutely no

problems

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> with side effects, and they are doing their job. As
> a heart attack survivor, my cardiologist and my
> endocrinologist both want my LDL

below 100,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> per the American Heart Association guidelines, and
> my HDL/Total

cholesterol

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> ratio to be where the AHA guidelines state that it
> should be.
>

Do you know of any science behind that 100 target?

No?

I have posted to this group that it is, in fact, a
matter of belief and not science.

Who would instill such a belief? Priests? Truck
drivers? Police? Lawyers? Indian Chiefs?

What's worse, sir, is that you sir, are not only full of
manure, you are dishonest into the bargain. As to the
latter, where is your rebuttable of my comments on the
article that supports what _you_ believe? It is
conspicuously absent, isn't it.

As to the former, what I believe, it is supported by an
overwhelming

number

Quoted message said:

of studies. Let us not pretend that it is your belief
that is in the mainstream.

Quoted message said:

> Even with what I regard as more than moderate
> exercising (30+ minutes

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> aerobics daily, weight training 3 times a week) and
> a very low fat,

very low

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> cholesterol diet, neither of those targets is easily
> obtainable _by

me_

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> without statins, particularly the 1st. Not even if I
> eat oatmeal

every day.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> 🙂

Why would you eat a low fat, low cholesterol diet when
in Framingham they found that those who ate the most
fat and cholesterol had the lowest serum cholesterol.
So, where is the science behind the low fat, low
cholesterol diet? Is it also a matter of belief?

Because my metabolism, and my body chemistry resulting
therefrom, governs what I need to do.

Quoted message said:

>
> I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes
> open, understanding

that

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> there are side effects. I was told of the side
> effects by both the prescribing physician, and by
> the information provided by the

manufacturer

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> of the prescribed drug. The side effects that were
> publicized when

the drug

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> was released and at the time that it was prescribed
> for me may not

have

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> included side effects that surfaced later; anyone
> with an IQ above

that of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the average salamander understands that. One risks
> side effects,

period,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> when taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to
> decide whether the

risk

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> is worth the potential reward.
>

You are fortunate that your physicians warned you. In
the case of Sharon Hope's husband, drug therapy was
continued despite the emergence of side effects. Mrs.
Hope had to do her own research into the damage of her
husband. The physicians were of no help.

So sue Sharon Hope's husband's physicians, and leave
your goddam hands off of my statins.

Quoted message said:

> Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to
> grind. Often, a

loved one

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> has displayed adverse health symptoms, and often
> (but not always), it

has

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> been determined to be the result of a given statin.
> That's a damned

shame,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> and all involved have my sympathy. But pretending
> that this somehow demonstrates that statins are bad
> for everyone, the folks who

manufacture

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> and sell them are evil, the doctors who prescribe
> them are in league

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the evil folks, and that statins should be removed
> from the list of

approved

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use
> herbal remedies

liberally

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> seasoned with folklore, is an overreaction, that has
> the potential to

injure

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> far more people than will ever be injured by the
> side effects of

statins.

Quoted message said:

>

Do you disbelieve that manufacturers are in it for the
money, drugs are sold like used cars, that clinical
data can be altered, that medical articles can be
"ghost" written, etc.?

No. I believe that the major drug manufacturers are all
Communists and should donate their mental, physical and
monetary resources to society for free. Not. Come off
your high horse Al, and show me support for your
position that I, as a layman in terms of medicine, can't
rebut in five minutes after a single reading. You won't
because you can't.

Quoted message said:

You are confusing me with someone else. The fact is
that pharmaceuticals are not as safe as they could be.
The statin drugs are simply a major example of that
fact. Would not be surprised that despite the billions
paid out by Bayer for Baycol, they still made a net
profit on that enterprise. Dead and injured and money
in the bank.

I'm not confusing you with anyone else. Wolves run with
wolves.

Quoted message said:

> Who am I? I am not an employee of any drug company
> or business that advertises or otherwise assists in
> the manufacture, distribution or

sale of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> any drug. I am not a medical professional, or in any
> way associated

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> the medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't
> practice privately.

And I

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> am not anonymous.
>

Because, "Statins may also cause cognitive problems."
you are on the side of taking advice (a caution) from
an Anonymous Internet Dude, an AID. Doubt Perry Mason
(MHRIP) would ever take an AID seriously.

Is the inability to read and understand something that
you were born

with??

Quoted message said:

I explained fully, in the post that you responded to. In
short what part

of

Quoted message said:

this sounds like I'm taking advice from an AID?

"I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes
open, understanding

that

Quoted message said:

there are side effects. I was told of the side effects
by both the prescribing physician, and by the
information provided by the manufacturer of the
prescribed drug. The side effects that were publicized
when the

drug

Quoted message said:

was released and at the time that it was prescribed for
me may not have

Quoted message said:

> included side effects that surfaced later; anyone
> with an IQ above

that

Quoted message said:

of the average salamander understands that. One risks
side effects,

period,

Quoted message said:

when taking the drugs. Everyone should be free to decide
whether the risk is worth the potential reward."

Quoted message said:

Always thought lawyers had superior linguistic
analytical abilities. You, apparently, no longer
possess such abilities. Wonder why.

Linguistics is the study of the history of languages.
What would that

have

Quoted message said:

to do with lawyers? As to logic, something that is
rather helpful to lawyers, read my post (as opposed to
snipping it without indicating the edit). Your lack of a
rebuttal to what I wrote demonstrates that logic isn't
something that you appear to be capable of.

Quoted message said:

I'll not spell it out. Life is a balancing act. The
English might say, what is gained on the swings is
lost on the round-about.

Best of luck with your heart health, Steve Marcus. We
ARE all in this together.

Regards,
A.L.

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

"Steve Marcus" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<yVy7c.29125$272.24080@lakeread03>...

Quoted message said:

"Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:TTs7c.55336$1p.927673@attbi_s54...

Quoted message said:

I guess I should have added that the attorney I
mentioned who was proud of taking the less potent statin
was not given to sudden rage, either.

And where, my dear lady, is _your_ rebuttal of my analysis
of the information posted here:

ravnskov.nucholesterol.htmOpen ↗

and

Quoted message said:

www.thincs.org.

Leaving aside the small matter of the fact that it's my
health that you are trying to effect with you crusade
against statins, what you consider to be "sudden rage" is
simply a normal reaction to trying to have a discussion
with people who post things, but are unable to defend
what they've posted or to even discuss those things on
the merits.

I understand that you have a loved one whom you believe to
have been injured by statins. Had you and/or he devoted
1/1,000 of the effort that you are devoting to scaring
people here without justification to simply finding out,
before the fact, about the side effects of the statin that
you blame for the problem and then pushing the doctor(s)
involved to giving a damn about what you believe they were
doing to your loved one, perhaps things might have been
different.

That they are not is no reason to latch on to studies that
hide within enormous amounts of nitpicking caveats the
core facts that statins are effective for doing what they
are claimed to do (prevent heart attacks), are advertised
as coming with side effects that can rear their ugly heads
in a small minority of people using them, and that people
who take them need to be very aware of these side effects,
what to do if they suspect that they have occurred, and
how to deal with a doctor who, _for any reason and
certainly not limited to the statin issue_, will not take
sufficient time to listen to and act upon problems that
their patients bring to them.

Steve

Steve said:

what you consider to be "sudden rage" is simply a normal
reaction to trying to have a discussion...

Have you had similar "normal" reactions on other
newsgroup Steve?

B'adant

liam <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

What's curious about Ravnskov's ideas is that the
considerable bibliography which he lists in support of his
analysis of statins are nearly all by Ravnskov himself.
Where are critiques of his position by experts such as De
Lorgeril or James Weiss ?

Thus I take what he proposes with more than a grain of
skepticism ;-) *

liaM

I think we have to take all medical advice and opinion
with "more than a grain of skepticism" liaM. I do. It's
all fodder for thought, and nothing more. The idea that
science presents us with facts is erroneous at best, and
disabling, at worst.

So did you find out anything more about the cinnamon?

B'adant