Statin question

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

A member on our website posted the following question: ~~~ Posted: Dec 13 2003, 08:27 AM Newbie
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 12-December 03

What are the common dangers of ststins and how often do complications happen? ~~~

Adverse reactions from statins are uncommon. And, when they occur, they are typically not dangerous
except in the rare instances that they are ignored for several months if not years.

Quoted message said:

Would you consider helping this member sort through his concerns on the SonoScore.com forum?

Would be glad to do that here, Patrick.

Humbly,

Andrew

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

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

A member on our website posted the following question: ~~~ Posted: Dec 13 2003, 08:27 AM Newbie
Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 12-December 03

What are the common dangers of ststins and how often do complications happen? ~~~

Adverse reactions from statins are uncommon.

No Andrew they are not. They may be 'uncommon' in your practise (but we don't know really what that
is, do we) but not as a whole. Although product monographs cite 2-5 percent, I think from feedback I
have received it is much higher, approaching 25 per cent who still have side effects (mitochondrial
damage, liver damage, coenzyme q10 depletion, cholesterol lowering to the brain, where cholesterol
is most important) years after stopping statins; and another percentage, who, yes do come off them
in time to reverse damage to some extent.

However, the total of these two groups is I think very, very high. I know virtually no one who has
taken statins and not experienced side effects to a greater or lesser degree. I am a working
journalist. I have informally polled many lipid clinics and ask everyone I know who does health
writing to do the same. What I hear is "yes" and also: "we didn't know this (fill in the blank)was
from statins because the doctor didn't know". I am a member of three private listserves, where
physicians have readily admitted they were snowed on statins, and by the way, resent it, because it
places them in jeopardy.

And this brings me to the second huge problem with statins and other drugs as well: medical schools,
medical research, text books, lab equipment, and grants to universities with medical schools are
overwhelmed if not completely controlled with Pharma money. Go against this, and you pay. Ask Dr.
David Healy, and Dr. Nancy Olivieri (google them.) Both tried to protect patients in clinical trials
from harmful dangerous drugs which kill, and lost their contracts, were sued, and the trials
continued, forcing both these people to the media. They both by the way won.

Furthermore, physician's contininug medical education is brought to them by detail men, and pharma
sponsored seminars, workshops, weekend conferences in expensive watering holes and other pimped
junkets. (www.nofreelunch.org). Practising physicians, cardiologists too, don't know what the real
case is with statins or do know, turn the other way and pocket the cheque. Even on www.theheart.org,
cardiologigists themselves have taken statins and discuss the deleterious side-effects, and what to
tell patients and keep the skin on their respective behinds.

From thalidomide, to DES, to HRT to statins, from ulcer medical research to cholesterol research,
much re-thinking and re-eduating must be done.

Have you read the LA Times stories on corruption in the National Institutes of Health? Do so, and
then tell me this is not endemic. The whole system needs to be changed Andrew, before you can say
anything about any drug, with any certainty.

Many people, especially of the age group that is prescribed statins, will not over-ride their
doctors say-so and stop taking them on their own. And they are told, by physicians who get their
education from the above sources, statins don't do that, or if they do, stop taking them for two
weeks, and if it's statins, it'll go away. Like merde it will.

People have been so frightened by the misleading, corrupt studies done on statins, with suppression
of the negative side effects in what is written, often by 'medical ghost-writers'
(cbc.caghostwritingOpen ↗ that they, the consumers, do not know
what to believe and are further terrified by direct-to-consmer advertising which implies that if you
don't take these drugs you will die. (Go to www.healthyskepticism.org.) Just this week, the FDA has
slapped a Pharma for just such misleading advertising about a cancer drug. But log onto the FDA
site, or Health Canada, and read the many many similar injunctions. For statins, for cancer drugs,
for drug after drug after drug.

Where do you get your continuing medical education Andrew? For statins, I know the answer: thank
your God for Sharon Hope, Al Lohse, and to a lesser extent me. We'll educate you in spite of
yourself. Because we like and respect you and think you could be one of the good ones.

MFG

mfg said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Patrick Blanchard MD said:

A member on our website posted the following question: ~~~ Posted: Dec 13 2003, 08:27 AM
Newbie Group: Members Posts: 1 Joined: 12-December 03

What are the common dangers of ststins and how often do complications happen? ~~~

Adverse reactions from statins are uncommon.

No Andrew they are not. They may be 'uncommon' in your practise

They are.

Quoted message said:

(but we don't know really what that is, do we)

You'll have to take my word for it. Either you believe I am truthful or you don't. You can certainly
Google up enough of my posts to make a fair determination.

Quoted message said:

but not as a whole. Although product monographs cite 2-5 percent, I think from feedback I have
received it is much higher, approaching 25 per cent

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any feedback?

For that matter, why would anyone provide you feedback, Mfg?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Where do you get your continuing medical education Andrew?

From the American Board of Internal Medicine, from the American Heart Association, from the American
College of Cardiology, from reading peer-reviewed journals, from my own clinical research, and *not*
from the pharmaceutical industry.

Quoted message said:

For statins, I know the answer:

Can't read your mind, but you know the answer now.

Quoted message said:

thank your God for Sharon Hope, Al Lohse, and to a lesser extent me.

I do but not for the reasons you proclaim.

Quoted message said:

We'll educate you in spite of yourself.

I learn from folks I encounter but not for the reasons you proclaim.

Quoted message said:

Because we like and respect you and think you could be one of the good ones.

I don't know about your "good" but I remain truthful.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

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

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

mfg wrote:

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any feedback?

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking
statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting rooms
45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase) Andrew, compare notes.
Then there's the family members, all who have taken statins, and those posting on cardiology
websites (yes, we the unannointed can get access) who have themselves, taken statins and suffered
side effects and who wrestle with the conundrum, should I or shouldn't I: tell.

I did hear from one person, a family friend, that he did not have problems on lipitor. Then I heard
from his wife and daughter of his memory problems and other concerns of theirs. So I sent them
articles including the November Smart Money Magazine article only to have them them phone me
immediately with serious and shocked concern, because the descriptions there, particularly of
Michael Hope (one Sharon Hope's husband) were exactly their husband and father's behaviour. They had
no idea statins could cause memory, thinking, learning, language, amnesia, and ocular problems, all
of which this man had been experiencing. I have also read posts on many bulletin boards. Yes those
people by and large suffer side effects, but not all the same ones, and many come there wondering if
such and such they are suffering, after taking statins for 4 years could be caused by statins.

www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipitor/ www.rxlist.com/boards/lipitor www.

But to answer your question Andrew as to the reason why people would tell me, why because they were
being interveiwed by me on that subject.

Quoted message said:

from my own clinical research, and *not* from the pharmaceutical industry.

Congratulations on not getting your continuing medical education from pharma.

I remain truthful.

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I sit,
you've sure as hell got cojones.

Quoted message said:

Humble servant of Christ, Andrew

MFG

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

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mfg wrote:

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any

feedback?

Quoted message said:

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking
statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting
rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase) Andrew,
compare notes.

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking Lipitor a few years ago and was
having significant back pain. I went off it completely (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no
difference. I think now it was arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back
the Lipitor from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but I'm not sure.
(I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient to identify the source of
the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has probably been made aware - and can try to confirm with
blood work, etc.

Bill

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

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

mfg wrote:

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any feedback?

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking
statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting
rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase) Andrew, compare
notes. Then there's the family members, all who have taken statins, and those posting on
cardiology websites (yes, we the unannointed can get access) who have themselves, taken statins
and suffered side effects and who wrestle with the conundrum, should I or shouldn't I: tell.

I did hear from one person, a family friend, that he did not have problems on lipitor. Then I
heard from his wife and daughter of his memory problems and other concerns of theirs. So I sent
them articles including the November Smart Money Magazine article only to have them them phone me
immediately with serious and shocked concern, because the descriptions there, particularly of
Michael Hope (one Sharon Hope's husband) were exactly their husband and father's behaviour. They
had no idea statins could cause memory, thinking, learning, language, amnesia, and ocular
problems, all of which this man had been experiencing. I have also read posts on many bulletin
boards. Yes those people by and large suffer side effects, but not all the same ones, and many
come there wondering if such and such they are suffering, after taking statins for 4 years could
be caused by statins.

www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipitor/ www.rxlist.com/boards/lipitor www.

But to answer your question Andrew as to the reason why people would tell me, why because they
were being interveiwed by me on that subject.

Quoted message said:

from my own clinical research, and *not* from the pharmaceutical industry.

Congratulations on not getting your continuing medical education from pharma.

I remain truthful.

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I
sit, you've sure as hell got cojones.

They are God's "cojones" :-)

Humbly,

Andrew

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

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mfg wrote:

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any

feedback?

Quoted message said:

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking
statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting
rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase) Andrew,
compare notes.

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking Lipitor a few years ago and
was having significant back pain. I went off it completely (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it
made no difference. I think now it was arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I
cut back the Lipitor from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but I'm
not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient to identify the source
of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has probably been made aware - and can try to confirm
with blood work, etc.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Statin induced myopathy will not always show up with elevated CK or ALT levels. To learn about
statin induced myopathy without elevated levels go to

impostertrial.comimpostertrial.comOpen ↗

Especially read the Physicians site, and the Histopathology site where
Dr. Phillips discusses his theories of how this type of myopathy occurs. You can contact him and
discuss your concerns.

Please also go to

forum.ditonline.comviewtopic.phpOpen ↗

and read about others who took lipitor, had their complaints dismissed, and now are disabled. This
may not be what has happened to you, but those who are now disabled by statins were told it was
arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and more, until these were
ruled out by appropriate testing. But what you are saying is what others, and I, have been through.

Also read on this board (sci.med.cardiology) the thread on 'muscle cramping at night'. I have there
put out almost all that happened to me, while on pravachol, lipitor, baycol and zocor. You see, the
doctors told me it would be discernible on blood work if my problem was from statins. They were
wrong. They told me to stop for a couple weeks, and if it was statins, it would go away. They were
wrong. They told me it was my back--they were right! The muscle weakening, wasting and atrophy there
seriously affected my instrumented lumbar fusion and caused me a greater degree of
spondylolisthesis.

On www.impostertrial.com there is contact information for Dr. Phillips, where you can find out where
you can get a muscle biopsy. That is the diagnostic test for statin induced muscle myopathy.

Also go to this site to learn more about the unknown and misunderstood side effects of statins by
the primary researcher in non-cardiac end point of statin use:

coloradohealthsite.orggolomb.htmlOpen ↗

Here is Dr. Golomb's contact information. Telephone and discuss your symptoms with her clinic to see
if they think your problems are statin-induced.

UCSD Statin Study 3366 N. Torrey Pines Court, Ste. 110 San Diego, CA

(858) 558-4950

UCSD Statin Study 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA 92093-0995

e-mail: [email hidden]

web site for Dr. Golomb's statin study: medicine.ucsd.educontactinfo.htmlOpen ↗

MFG

On 16 Dec 2003 19:02:14 -0800, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.

Chung said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I
sit, you've sure as hell got cojones.

They are God's "cojones" :-)

You really ARE intimate with God, aren't you? Any other men in your life? Matt

Quoted message said:

"mfg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking Lipitor a few years ago and
was having significant back pain. I went off it completely (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it
made no difference. I think now it was arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I
cut back the Lipitor from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but I'm
not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient to identify the source
of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has probably been made aware - and can try to confirm
with blood work, etc.

Bill

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be associated
with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago because 1. Going
off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and even upped the dose
the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart attacks.
The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented one person has a
severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers are reversed, it is
not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at least get a rough idea
of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a liver (or other) problem
vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Going off statins for 2 1/2 years has only marginally removed my pain. Going off statins does not
remove the pain, because if it statin induced pain it results from cellular and muscle damage. Some
people find the pain lessens, but does not go away. Similarly to pain caused by any profound injury.

Mitochondrial damage remained from six months to six years in Dr. Phillips study subjects. See the
Histopathology page of www.impostertrial.com. You access that by going into the for physician's
section of his website. There you can read about the muscle biopsies done on people who had pain
long after stopping statins, and see slides showing the damage.

Regarding your comment that statins PREVENT heart attacks, please read this study out of
Therepeutics Initiative, funded by the British Columbia Minstry of Health:

ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71 primary
prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to 5
years to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall health impact, total mortality
and total serious adverse events. Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an overall
health benefit in primary prevention trials."

Then read Therapeutics Initiative Letter No 49, ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: Statins provide a cardiovascular and total mortality benefit for patients with
clinically evident occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and a cholesterol of >3.5 mM.

Large RCTs are required to test different statin dosing strategies for secondary prevention before
making firm recommendations. "

Unfortunately those taking statins and not getting liver damage were not necessarily saved or
prevented from cardiac arrest, or death from cardiac arrest. None of the people who did the
Therapeutics Initiative study are paid by pharma.

MFG

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> mfg wrote:
>
> Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any

feedback?

Quoted message said:

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while
taking statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic
waiting rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase)
Andrew, compare notes.

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking

Lipitor a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few years ago and was having significant back pain. I went off it

completely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no difference. I think now it

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back the

Lipitor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

identify the source of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been made aware - and can try to confirm with blood work, etc.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Statin induced myopathy will not always show up with elevated CK or ALT levels. To learn about
statin induced myopathy without elevated levels go to

impostertrial.comimpostertrial.comOpen ↗

Especially read the Physicians site, and the Histopathology site where
Dr. Phillips discusses his theories of how this type of myopathy occurs. You can contact him and
discuss your concerns.

Please also go to

forum.ditonline.comviewtopic.phpOpen ↗

and read about others who took lipitor, had their complaints dismissed, and now are disabled. This
may not be what has happened to you, but those who are now disabled by statins were told it was
arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and more, until these were
ruled out by appropriate testing. But what you are saying is what others, and I, have been
through.

Also read on this board (sci.med.cardiology) the thread on 'muscle cramping at night'. I have
there put out almost all that happened to me, while on pravachol, lipitor, baycol and zocor. You
see, the doctors told me it would be discernible on blood work if my problem was from statins.
They were wrong. They told me to stop for a couple weeks, and if it was statins, it would go away.
They were wrong. They told me it was my back--they were right! The muscle weakening, wasting and
atrophy there seriously affected my instrumented lumbar fusion and caused me a greater degree of
spondylolisthesis.

On www.impostertrial.com there is contact information for Dr. Phillips, where you can find out
where you can get a muscle biopsy. That is the diagnostic test for statin induced muscle myopathy.

Also go to this site to learn more about the unknown and misunderstood side effects of statins by
the primary researcher in non-cardiac end point of statin use:

coloradohealthsite.orggolomb.htmlOpen ↗

Here is Dr. Golomb's contact information. Telephone and discuss your symptoms with her clinic to
see if they think your problems are statin-induced.

UCSD Statin Study 3366 N. Torrey Pines Court, Ste. 110 San Diego, CA

(858) 558-4950

UCSD Statin Study 9500 Gilman Dr. La Jolla, CA 92093-0995

e-mail: [email hidden]

web site for Dr. Golomb's statin study: medicine.ucsd.educontactinfo.htmlOpen ↗

MFG

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be associated
with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago because 1. Going
off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and even upped the dose
the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart attacks.
The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented one person has a
severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers are reversed, it is
not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at least get a rough idea
of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a liver (or other) problem
vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

Bill

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"mfg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking

Lipitor a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few years ago and was having significant back pain. I went off it

completely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no difference. I think now it

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back the

Lipitor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

identify the source of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been made aware - and can try to confirm with blood work, etc.

Bill

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be associated
with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago because 1.
Going off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and even upped the
dose the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart
attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented one
person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers are
reversed, it is not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at least
get a rough idea of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a liver
(or other) problem vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Going off statins for 2 1/2 years has only marginally removed my pain. Going off statins does
not remove the pain, because if it statin induced pain it results from cellular and muscle
damage. Some people find the pain lessens, but does not go away. Similarly to pain caused by any
profound injury.

Mitochondrial damage remained from six months to six years in Dr. Phillips study subjects. See the
Histopathology page of www.impostertrial.com. You access that by going into the for physician's
section of his website. There you can read about the muscle biopsies done on people who had pain
long after stopping statins, and see slides showing the damage.

Regarding your comment that statins PREVENT heart attacks, please read this study out of
Therepeutics Initiative, funded by the British Columbia Minstry of Health:

ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71 primary
prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to 5
years to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall health impact, total
mortality and total serious adverse events. Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an
overall health benefit in primary prevention trials."

Then read Therapeutics Initiative Letter No 49, ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: Statins provide a cardiovascular and total mortality benefit for patients with
clinically evident occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and a cholesterol of >3.5 mM.

Large RCTs are required to test different statin dosing strategies for secondary prevention before
making firm recommendations. "

Unfortunately those taking statins and not getting liver damage were not necessarily saved or
prevented from cardiac arrest, or death from cardiac arrest. None of the people who did the
Therapeutics Initiative study are paid by pharma.

MFG

OK. I'll take a look at those. But can you tell me what they are. I could not find an author, but
maybe I was not just looking in the right place. Are they peer reviewed? Are they a letter or a
research report?

Thanks.

Bill

Quoted message said:

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart
attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented one
person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off.

But that trade off is a statistical trade off, in terms of numbers in a population, whereas what the
individual wants to know is the individual trade off, which may be quite different. For example,
suppose statins do very well at reducing heart attacks in 50% of those who take them, have no effect
at all in another 49%, and in 1% have damaging side effects and *increase* heart attack risk. That's
a perfectly plausible situation which is consistent (with some adjustment of figures) with the
general reported results.

The problem is that when an individual is given a drug which statistically reduces a risk in a
population, the individual has no idea whether it's doing him or her any good at all, or indeed any
harm, unless the effects are sufficiently immediate and dramatic that a few simple stop-start trials
can establish causality.

In the example here, our patient would complain perhaps of muscular weakness, and perhaps be assured
by his doctor that such problems were very rare, whereas the prevention of heart attack benefit was
definite and real. But of course statistical, and our poor hypothetical patient then goes on to die
of a heart attack caused by the muscular problems caused by the statin.

Am I alone in finding the modern fashion of "evidence based medicine" which is based of population
statistics very questionable?

--
Chris Malcolm [email hidden] +44 (0)131 651 3445 DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
["]http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]

[email hidden] (Chris Malcolm) wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Am I alone in finding the modern fashion of "evidence based medicine" which is based of population
statistics very questionable?

Possibly. The population statistics apply to the population studied. If the test is sufficiently
powered to examine subpopulations, then results may differ for different populations.

When you try to apply research results to yourself, you have to match yourself to the best-fitting
and most specific population for which adequate data exist.

As we learn more about personalizing medicine based on genetics, I think the specificity of the
research results will grow to include more factors. But for now, there is little available beyond
the large studies of benefits and adverse reactions for several rather generic populations differing
mainly in lipid patterns and prior history of cardiac events.

By all means, if you can determine that you belong to a subgroup that gets more harm than benefit
from a statin, don't take it. But if you are only speculating and can't really separate yourself
from the large populations studied, you should base your consideration of the tradeoffs on what
happened to those large populations.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Quoted message said:

MD/PhD) said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I
sit, you've sure as hell got cojones.

They are God's "cojones" :-)

You really ARE intimate with God, aren't you? Any other men in your life?

Well, Mu said Chung was a friend, confidant and more. I've posted questions about that a few times
and neither has addressed it.

Pastorio

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"mfg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking

Lipitor a

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

few years ago and was having significant back pain. I went off it

completely

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

(on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no difference. I think now it

was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back the

Lipitor

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but

I'm

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient

to

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

identify the source of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

been made aware - and can try to confirm with blood work, etc.

Bill

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be
associated with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago
because 1. Going off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and
even upped the dose the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with
furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart
attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented one
person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers
are reversed, it is not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at
least get a rough idea of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a
liver (or other) problem vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Going off statins for 2 1/2 years has only marginally removed my pain. Going off statins does
not remove the pain, because if it statin induced pain it results from cellular and muscle
damage. Some people find the pain lessens, but does not go away. Similarly to pain caused by any
profound injury.

Mitochondrial damage remained from six months to six years in Dr. Phillips study subjects. See
the Histopathology page of www.impostertrial.com. You access that by going into the for
physician's section of his website. There you can read about the muscle biopsies done on people
who had pain long after stopping statins, and see slides showing the damage.

Regarding your comment that statins PREVENT heart attacks, please read this study out of
Therepeutics Initiative, funded by the British Columbia Minstry of Health:

ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71 primary
prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to 5
years to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall health impact, total
mortality and total serious adverse events. Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an
overall health benefit in primary prevention trials."

Then read Therapeutics Initiative Letter No 49, ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: Statins provide a cardiovascular and total mortality benefit for patients with
clinically evident occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and a cholesterol of

Quoted message said:

3.5 mM.

Large RCTs are required to test different statin dosing strategies for secondary prevention
before making firm recommendations. "

Unfortunately those taking statins and not getting liver damage were not necessarily saved or
prevented from cardiac arrest, or death from cardiac arrest. None of the people who did the
Therapeutics Initiative study are paid by pharma.

MFG

OK. I'll take a look at those. But can you tell me what they are. I could not find an author, but
maybe I was not just looking in the right place. Are they peer reviewed? Are they a letter or a
research report?

Thanks.

Bill

Therapeutics Initiative is an epidemiologists group, from a British Columbia (Canada) medical
school. As a group, and not just for these two studies, they are funded by the British Columbia
Ministry of Health. You can see on their site the many studies they have done on all kinds of drugs.
Epidemilogists study all the studies, crunch the numbers and come up with a finding. So, they didn't
actually go into a lab themselves. They study all the other studies, and come to a finding based on
evidence. They are privvy to information not in the abstracts on www.pubmed.org, for example.

Go to ti.ubc.cati.ubc.caOpen ↗. That is the home page. I believe it sets out their mandate etc there.

The group is led by Dr. J. Wright, epidemiologist, and do this one thing only: assess studies and
publish their findings. Dr. Wright, just prior to the publication of Therapeutics Initiative Letter
#48 on statins, sent a warning letter to all physicians in British Columbia about statin side
effects, and how little understood they were. He was warning the doctors to look closely at
prescribing, because his group had found no reason to prescribe statins for prevention of
cardiovascular disease.

I hope you are not affected by them. I hope you've just been working out too hard. But if you do
think statins have affected an existing condition, or have created new problems, you will have more
complete information to take to your doctor for a discussion.

If you wish e-mail me privately. Some of my e-mail addresses have an
x. Remove it. (I'm catching on, slowly.)

MFG

[email hidden] (mfg) wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

If you wish e-mail me privately. Some of my e-mail addresses have an
x. Remove it. (I'm catching on, slowly.)

MFG

I hope you'll keep most of the discussion here. I'm sure many people are finding it very interesting
and very well done.

I've read the letters (48/49), BTW. There are some real difficulties in establishing a benefit for a
drug when it treats a condition that develops so very slowly. I find myself wondering if the BC
group would apply the same logic to the treatment of hypertension? There again, the number of MIs
and strokes avoided in 3-5 years in a population without symptomatic heart disease might require
treating a very large number of patients. We do so anyway because the benefit is believed to be
cumulative (in part) and that it might take years for the treatment group to diverge from the
placebo group in a statistically significant way.
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

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

Quoted message said:

MD/PhD) said:

Quoted message said:

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I
sit, you've sure as hell got cojones.

They are God's "cojones" :-)

You really ARE intimate with God, aren't you?

Yes, I do love Him.

Humble servant of Christ,

Andrew

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

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

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> "mfg" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>
> Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking

Lipitor a

Quoted message said:

> few years ago and was having significant back pain. I went off it

completely

Quoted message said:

> (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no difference. I think now

it

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

was

Quoted message said:

> arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back the

Lipitor

Quoted message said:

> from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better,

but

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I'm

Quoted message said:

> not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)
>
> So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the

patient

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

to

Quoted message said:

> identify the source of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has

probably

Quoted message said:

> been made aware - and can try to confirm with blood work, etc.
>
> Bill

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be
associated with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago
because 1. Going off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and
even upped the dose the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with
furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart
attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every 50 heart attacks prevented
one person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the
numbers are reversed, it is not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of?
One could at least get a rough idea of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking
statins who have a liver (or other) problem vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

Bill

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Bill

Going off statins for 2 1/2 years has only marginally removed my pain. Going off statins does
not remove the pain, because if it statin induced pain it results from cellular and muscle
damage. Some people find the pain lessens, but does not go away. Similarly to pain caused by
any profound injury.

Mitochondrial damage remained from six months to six years in Dr. Phillips study subjects. See
the Histopathology page of www.impostertrial.com. You access that by going into the for
physician's section of his website. There you can read about the muscle biopsies done on
people who had pain long after stopping statins, and see slides showing the damage.

Regarding your comment that statins PREVENT heart attacks, please read this study out of
Therepeutics Initiative, funded by the British Columbia Minstry of Health:

ti.ubc.caletter48.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71 primary
prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to
5 years to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall health impact, total
mortality and total serious adverse events. Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide
an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials."

Then read Therapeutics Initiative Letter No 49, ti.ubc.caletter49.htmOpen ↗

"Conclusions: Statins provide a cardiovascular and total mortality benefit for patients with
clinically evident occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and a cholesterol of
>3.5 mM.

Large RCTs are required to test different statin dosing strategies for secondary prevention
before making firm recommendations. "

Unfortunately those taking statins and not getting liver damage were not necessarily saved or
prevented from cardiac arrest, or death from cardiac arrest. None of the people who did the
Therapeutics Initiative study are paid by pharma.

MFG

OK. I'll take a look at those. But can you tell me what they are. I could

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

find an author, but maybe I was not just looking in the right place. Are

they

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

peer reviewed? Are they a letter or a research report?

Thanks.

Bill

Therapeutics Initiative is an epidemiologists group, from a British Columbia (Canada) medical
school. As a group, and not just for these two studies, they are funded by the British Columbia
Ministry of Health. You can see on their site the many studies they have done on all kinds of
drugs. Epidemilogists study all the studies, crunch the numbers and come up with a finding. So,
they didn't actually go into a lab themselves. They study all the other studies, and come to a
finding based on evidence. They are privvy to information not in the abstracts on www.pubmed.org,
for example.

Go to ti.ubc.cati.ubc.caOpen ↗. That is the home page. I believe it sets out their mandate etc there.

The group is led by Dr. J. Wright, epidemiologist, and do this one thing only: assess studies and
publish their findings. Dr. Wright, just prior to the publication of Therapeutics Initiative
Letter #48 on statins, sent a warning letter to all physicians in British Columbia about statin
side effects, and how little understood they were. He was warning the doctors to look closely at
prescribing, because his group had found no reason to prescribe statins for prevention of
cardiovascular disease.

I hope you are not affected by them. I hope you've just been working out too hard. But if you do
think statins have affected an existing condition, or have created new problems, you will have
more complete information to take to your doctor for a discussion.

If you wish e-mail me privately. Some of my e-mail addresses have an
x. Remove it. (I'm catching on, slowly.)

MFG

Thank you for the information and your concern. I've looked through the Therapeutics Initiative
Letters and what they appear to be saying is that if you have high cholesterol or clogged arteries
you SHOULD be taking statins. (This is my situation.) If you don't, you should not because the risks
outweigh the benefits. That makes sense to me.

Getting back to my original point. I think you would agree that it is possible for a patient to
misidentify statins as the cause of muscle pain. I point to myself as a likely example - in part
because a while after I went back on statins, the particular pain I thought might be due to statins
went away. In any case, it is obvious that someone on statins can get arthritis - quite
independently of the statins. However, I do agree with you that there are risks to statins and, to
me, it comes down to a risk/benefit trade-off.

Bill

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

mfg wrote:

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any

feedback?

Quoted message said:

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking
statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting
rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase) Andrew,
compare notes.

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking Lipitor a few years ago and
was having significant back pain. I went off it completely (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it
made no difference. I think now it was arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I
cut back the Lipitor from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but I'm
not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient to identify the source
of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has probably been made aware - and can try to confirm
with blood work, etc.

Bill

I don't think I gave you these.

What is statin-induced myopathy impostertrial.comphysician.htmOpen ↗

Discussion of the cholesterol question: thincs.orglinks.htmOpen ↗

Introduction to the Citizen's Petition on statins by Peter Langsjoen, MD "Statins kill people - lots
of people - and they wound many, many more" redflagsweekly.com2002 july08P.htmlOpen ↗

MFG