"Al. Lohse" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
Quoted message said:Steve Marcus, chill. This is a newsgroup. There is no need
to take anyone seriously!
So spreading misinformation regarding cardiac health
isn't serious?
Look Al. I am the first person to laugh at folks who come
here seeking medical advice. The purpose of this sort of
forum is to gather information. All points of view, pro and
contra any particular treatment on any particular cardiac
issue should be, and as far as I am concerned, are, welcome.
I draw the line, however, at attempts to scare people away
from mainstream treatment, without adequate support for
doing so. And you do not have adequate support for your
position. I also draw the line at folks like Sharon Hope,
with whom I would otherwise sympathize with respect to the
damage she alleges to have been done to her husband,
attempting to argue that foks should shun medication that
has been proven to reduce heart attacks because the
medication has side effects, and one of those side effects
adversely impacted her husband. It's like arguing that
people shouldn't drive cars because one's loved one was
seriously injured in an automobile accident caused in part
by a negligent mechanic. I think that people ought to
understand the benefits versus the risks of driving, and
ought to understand the necessity to maintain one's vehicle
in top mechanical shape, which includes seeking out the best
mechanic (and part of the defininition of "best" is that the
mechanic will talk to the customer and answer every question
in depth).
Quoted message said:
Steve Marcus 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:Quoted message said:> > service. Your reply speaks volumes. Grow up.
>
> Not a chance that he ever will. And it's even a
> little bit worse
than
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:you
Quoted message said:> state.
>
What is even a bit worse than he states?
What is even a bit worse than he states? What is even a
bit worse than he states? What is even a bit worse than
he states?
The fact that you have no reply on the merits to what I've
written, and that you asked a rather disingenous question
regarding the source of my beliefs, when you know full well
that there is overwhelmingly more support for my beliefs re
statins than there is for your own.
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:> 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:Quoted message said:100,
Quoted message said:> per the American Heart Association guidelines, and
> my HDL/Total
cholesterol
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
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:my comments on the article that supports what _you_
believe? It is conspicuously absent, isn't it.
Got any proof about the manure thing? Dishonesty? I cannot
find your comments. Please direct me to them.
See above.
Quoted message said:
I could be wrong, but you may be vehemently defending a
system of beliefs without finding valid supporting
evidence. For me, I leave belief systems entirely to
matters of the soul. Science can and does correct itself
when sufficient evidence is available to do so. That is
what is important here. Your belief in what you are doing
to be the best for you is fine. However, you would do well
to inform yourself as well.
I am far better informed on the topic of cardiac
health in general, and the specifics of my own
condition, than you are.
Quoted message said:
One should never resort to vulgarity or profanity to close
discussion on scientific matters. It helps no one. Open-
mindedness is especially important in scientific matters.
Close your mind at your own peril.
I see nothing vulgar in anything that I wrote. To date, with
respect to the viewpoint that I posted (my own views) and
with respect to the two articles re the evils of statins
that I read and posted my thoughts on, you have said
nothing. In my view, you are full of manure when you can't
even attempt a discussion on the merits, and start attacking
people instead of their positions.
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:As to the former, what I believe, it is supported by an
overwhelming
number
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:of studies. Let us not pretend that it is your belief
that is in the mainstream.
You are free to chose quantity over quality any day. It is
part of the cholesterol dichotomy. Quantity says yes,
quality says no. It is unlikely there be a compromise, a
middle ground.
Yet, I've posted why the two studies that were cited
as supporting the evils of statins lacked quality, and
you haven't posted a word in rebuttal. Can you say
"full of manure"?
Quoted message said:
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:Quoted message said:low
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:Quoted message said:day.
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
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:what I need to do.
You are encouraged to read Dr. Mary Enig's "Oiling of
America." It may help put fat things into perspective
for you.
Perhaps Dr. Enig isn't the final word on the topic? Or does
the fact that you agree with her (and/or she with you) make
her position unassailably correct?
Quoted message said:
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>
> I went into the idea of using statins with my eyes
> open,
understanding
Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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
Quoted message said:> of the prescribed drug. The side effects that were
> publicized when
the
Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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:Quoted message said:> included side effects that surfaced later; anyone
> with an IQ above
that
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:of
Quoted message said:> 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
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:risk
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
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:of my statins.
They are not your statins. I have never had my hand, of
whatever description, on YOUR statins. You sound like you
are addicted to them.
Far from it. If one follows your position, and Ms. Hope's
position to its logical conclusion, statins will be banned
as being too dangerous, and if not banned, will not be
prescribed for fear of being sued notwithstanding that
_known_ side effects were fully discussed with the patient.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
> Folks like Lohse typically have personal axes to
> grind. Often, a
loved
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:one
Quoted message said:> has displayed adverse health symptoms, and often
> (but not always),
it
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:has
Quoted message said:> been determined to be the result of a given statin.
> That's a damned
shame,
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:> and sell them are evil, the doctors who prescribe
> them are in league
with
Quoted message said:> the evil folks, and that statins should be removed
> from the list of
approved
Quoted message said:> drugs so that we can all go on cult diets and use
> herbal remedies
liberally
Quoted message said:> seasoned with folklore, is an overreaction, that has
> the potential
to
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:injure
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
Quoted message said:Quoted message said: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.
There certainly is no "high horse." You, as everyone else,
is ENCOURAGED TO INFORM YOURSELF. I may be playing
"devil's advocate" to some extent, but I seek the truth,
not even one of two versions of it. The strong evidence
from huge and large publicly funded trials of MR FIT and
ALLHAT-LLT support the notion that cholesterol
considerations are, at best, enormously overstated.
But, my dear Al, I did "inform myself." I read two articles
that were cited to me as being informative. One by the good
Dr. Ranskov, the other by the good Dr. Kauffman. I posted
some commentary re why those articles aren't all they are
cracked up to be. Did you reply? Nope? Do you have a cogent
reply? Doubtful, else one suspects that you would have
reply. It seems to me that doing as you do, pontificating
without discussing the merits, qualifies as being on a
"high horse."
Quoted message said:Here is an example of "support for (my) position:" http:/-
/www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ghostwriting/
"What appear to be scientific articles are really
infomercials..." Dr David Healy, Univ of Wales
And so your rebutal of scientific studies is to cite a news
report? LOL.
Quoted message said:And another: If you google: {medical "ghost writers" CBC}
The first article is: "Ghostwriters in the Sky"
informedpharmacotherapy.cominformedpharmacotherapy.comOpen ↗
editorial13.htm
Feel free, as you truly are, to rebut them. I will give
you five days instead of your five minutes. No profanity
please... there are ladies present.
These "sources" are self-rebutting. The implication in the
second source that somehow having a paper written by X, and
then signed by Y, means that the paper doesn't reflect the
research conducted by Y and the conclusions based upon that
that research aren't Y's conclusions, and are not perfectly
valid. This statement:
"On the other hand, most ghostwriters are usually not
experts in the field, can only write about the selective
data provided to them, are commissioned to put a positive
spin on this information, and finally, future opportunities
are dependent upon providing the client with what they are
looking for. And what is that? A good return on investment.
Nothing more and nothing less. In other words, writer
objectivity is about as elusive as the timeliness and
writing eloquence that sponsors apparently claim researchers
themselves are unable to delivery."
is highly debatable. If a researcher will selectively edit
data, what difference whether the researcher writes the
paper or a ghostwriter? GIGO. If the researcher explains all
of the data, and states the researcher's conclusions for the
benefit of the ghostwriter, why will the report necessarily
be other than objective?
You can also look at the first part of the article dealing
with why ghostwriters are hired, and if you read critically,
you find a single logical reason: investigators are busy,
and good investigators are not necessarily good writers. All
that is stated prior to that comment:
"Efficiency and control over investment. The worldwide
industry research and development (R&D) expenditures are
estimated to be $40-60 billion US per year. (3,4) Industry
is now the principle sponsor of all biomedical R&D,
accounting for about 62% of expenditures in 2000, as
compared to only 32% in 1980. (5) While the estimates vary
widely, the cost of bringing a new drug to market is now
being quoted at $400-800 million US, and it is estimated
that about 11 years is required to take a product from the
bench to marketplace. (4,6) Combine these costs with the
recognition that drugs have a relatively short marketing half-
life, and financial success is predicated on sending just
the right message at just the right time to health care
professionals and consumers."
is in effect circular. Given the point that the author of
the editorial wants to make, he or she puts in statements
that in and of themselves don't necessarily mean that anyone
would hire a ghostwriter.
And so it goes. You should feel free to learn to read
critically, Al. It will do you a world of good.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:
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.
Certainly a wolf has instincts I do not possess.
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:Quoted message said:of
Quoted message said:> any drug. I am not a medical professional, or in any
> way associated
with
Quoted message said:> the medical profession. I am a lawyer, but don't
> practice
privately.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:And I
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:Quoted message said:I explained fully, in the post that you responded to. In
short what
part of
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:this sounds like I'm taking advice from an AID?
You wrote in support of taking advice from an AID. What
part do you not understand?
I did not. I stated my own point of view. It was not offered
as advice to anyone else. And it was not offered in support
of anyone else's position. If you disagree, let's see some
quotes from my post to back up your disagreement.
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
Quoted message said:> included side effects that surfaced later; anyone
> with an IQ above
that
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:of 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."
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: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.
What post are you referring to? Should like to peruse it.
Do not snip extensively and do try to indicate that I do
when I do. That allows a subsequent reader to look for
additional information in the preceding posts.
Come, come, my good man. You know what I mean. I went to two
linked websites and discussed an article by Dr. Ranskov that
was on the first site, and an article by Dr. Kauffman that
was on the second site. Or will you claim that you haven't
seen that post?
Quoted message said:
Linguistics, the noun, may be the study of languages.
"Linguistic," the adjective means "of or pertaining to
language." Considering lawyers deal extensively with
language, one should assume that lawyers, other than those
who won their law degrees in a poker game, would know
that. When we rely on lawyers, we rely on them to
communicate accurately and unambiguously, since they
possess linguistic logic, linguistic analytical abilities.
So far, I think that I've been doing a pretty good job,
without ever having studied linguistics.
Quoted message said:
I'd guess you will have known that in the past. Perhaps,
with the assistance of a physician, you can determine if
your memory will return.
LOL.
Quoted message said:Quoted message said:Quoted message said:>>>>.snipped >>>>>>>>.
No one is out to destroy your system of beliefs. Speaking
only for myself, you are encouraged to inform yourself,
become objective. Also remember, it was not that long ago
that the majority of people thought smoking tobacco was a
desirable activity. Now the majority thinks taking statins
is. The majority can get it wrong, especially when they
are professionally and systematically nudged, cajoled and
misled. They had their fun with Einstein, didn't they?
Individual thinking takes courage, going with the flow
does not. Be courageous... everyone.
There are no fewer than three books written about the
folly of cholesterol endeavors. Where are the books in
favour of altering ones cholesterol profile?
Three whole books. Wow. That's a lot. How many books would
the write-ups re research studies that showed the efficacy
of statins, as well as the dangers of cholesterol, have
filled if compiled into books?
Quoted message said:
There is, indeed, information in missing information.
Have a nice day,
A.L.
Likewise Al.
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
Quoted message said:
What is even a bit worse than he states? What is even a
bit worse than he states? What is even a bit worse than
he states?
