Disabled after taking STATIN

Sharon Hope said:

My husband was totally disabled by Lipitor (4 years
10mg/day) ...

Isn't that a very small dose ?

liaM regenerating the Qi might help; Qi Gong exercises;
hugging trees; going barefoot in the forest.

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

Quoted message said:

liaM regenerating the Qi might help; Qi Gong exercises;
hugging trees; going barefoot in the forest.

Akemantak.

B'adant

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in article
<8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> article
> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> >> article
> >> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote
> >> >> in article <e5f4a9c2.0403191152.71e6f022@postin-
> >> >> g.google.com>:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off than
many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

You are very fortunate. My husband was totally disabled by
Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two years later after
stopping the drug, he is still disabled. You are also in an
age group for which there is very little evidence of statin
efficacy.

And I have no adverse effects after six years at 80mg. I
will continue to follow my doctor's advice about the
desirability of the medication.

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Percentages. If five in a million get adverse effects I
figure I'll probably be one of 999,995 patients not
getting them.

Quoted message said:

It would be a benefit to become better informed.

Quoted message said:

Pfizer admits to 'under 2%' for most of the side-effects
listed on the physician's insert - at 2% that would be:
TWENTY THOUSAND PATIENTS in a million. (compare that to
your estimate of five)

How much under 2%? And that translates into how many fewer
than 20,000? But even at face value, following your logic
would change my odds to 980,000 no effects to 20,000
negative effects--still odds most reasonable people would
take a flyer on.

Quoted message said:

There are over 106 million patients on statins world wide.
Even at an even 100 million, at 2% that would mean TWO
MILLION PATIENTS with side effects.

Side effects include mild muscle pain and similar effects,
not only debilitating ones. BTW, some of those studies
include coronary problems among the negative outcomes--which
some subjects were already likely to suffer with or without
the statins. We're certainly not talking 2,000,000
debilitating physical or mental cases. If we were, I'll
repeat my much earlier question that no one has address:
where are the reports on these patients, the government(s)
agency reports, the investigative reporters articles, other
credible evidence of such numbers?

Quoted message said:

Pfizer's estimates are considered to be low by many
researchers. If Pfizer says 2% and Dr. Golomb sees 15%,
perhaps the actual number is somewhere between those.

Quoted message said:

Say half-way at only 6% - we are now talking about SIXTY
THOUSAND PATIENTS harmed per million patients.

Absolutely no basis for averaging numbers from clinical
trials with numbers from one doctor's observation of what
may be special case patients in a research hospital setting,
an observation by a doctor who may have a bias toward seeing
adverse effects (I'll continue to give her the benefit of
the doubt until we see the results of her study).

Quoted message said:

SIX MILLION with side effects.

I don't buy the numbers. Evidence for 106 million statin
users? Names of studies or researchers that consider
Pfizer's figures too low? Figures that those questioners
think are more reasonable?

Quoted message said:

It is a good thing you are still employed at 75, because
having an additional six million people on disability
fifteen to twenty years early will take lots more taxes.

Who said I was still employed? I try to write clearly and
accurately; please read in the same spirit. More important,
who says there will be 6,000,000 additional people disabled
from statins? You lose credibility with this loose use of
numbers. You might want to read John Paulos, "Innumeracy:
Mathematical Illiteracy and its Consequences." Hill and
[censored], New York; 1988.

Quoted message said:

Not only are these people disabled and retired early,
drawing social security disability, they are no longer
working and paying their own taxes, and - since many were
high achieving business owners who employed many other
people, they are also no longer providing jobs for others
who would have been paying taxes if their workers were
still employed.

Now you're building a sociopolitical program on faulty
numbers.

Quoted message said:

The obvious solution is to:

Quoted message said:

1) Identify what the statin-damaged have in common
2) Screen these patients out to prevent the damage
3) Identify a treatment for those harmed so they can
recover to a useful life

Quoted message said:

It is a much bigger problem than just some quietly
suffering individuals out of sight and out of mind.

I'm tempted to note that people out of their mind can be a
very big problem, but I'll just note that I'm not
persuaded by anything that follows your speculation about
6% disabled from statins. It's hard to build a tower
without a first storey.
--
Don [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Akemantak.

whazzdat ?? !

Quoted message said:

B'adant

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote in
article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
>> article
>> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote
>> >> in article <e5f4a9c2.0403200949.60ae5d67@posting-
>> >> .google.com>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee
>> >> >> wrote in article <e5f4a9c2.0403191152.71e6f02-
>> >> >> [email hidden]>:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off than
many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

You are very fortunate. My husband was totally disabled
by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two years later
after stopping the drug, he is still disabled. You are
also in an age group for which there is very little
evidence of statin efficacy.

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years at
80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice about the
desirability of the medication."

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is cognitively
impaired does not realize it, or is told it is aging,
stress, not sleeping properly, something that everyone does.

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more and
more. Each increment being only mm from the previous one,
but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away from the
person they should be.

B'adant

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Percentages. If five in a million get adverse effects I
figure I'll probably be one of 999,995 patients not
getting them.

Quoted message said:

It would be a benefit to become better informed.

Quoted message said:

Pfizer admits to 'under 2%' for most of the side-effects
listed on the physician's insert - at 2% that would be:
TWENTY THOUSAND PATIENTS in a million. (compare that to
your estimate of five)

How much under 2%? And that translates into how many fewer
than 20,000? But even at face value, following your logic
would change my odds to 980,000 no effects to 20,000
negative effects--still odds most reasonable people would
take a flyer on.

Quoted message said:

There are over 106 million patients on statins world
wide. Even at an even 100 million, at 2% that would mean
TWO MILLION PATIENTS with side effects.

Side effects include mild muscle pain and similar effects,
not only debilitating ones. BTW, some of those studies
include coronary problems among the negative outcomes--
which some subjects were already likely to suffer with or
without the statins. We're certainly not talking 2,000,000
debilitating physical or mental cases. If we were, I'll
repeat my much earlier question that no one has address:
where are the reports on these patients, the government(s)
agency reports, the investigative reporters articles,
other credible evidence of such numbers?

Quoted message said:

Pfizer's estimates are considered to be low by many
researchers. If Pfizer says 2% and Dr. Golomb sees 15%,
perhaps the actual number is somewhere between those.

Quoted message said:

Say half-way at only 6% - we are now talking about SIXTY
THOUSAND PATIENTS harmed per million patients.

Absolutely no basis for averaging numbers from clinical
trials with numbers from one doctor's observation of
what may be special case patients in a research
hospital setting, an observation by a doctor who may
have a bias toward seeing adverse effects (I'll
continue to give her the benefit of the doubt until we
see the results of her study).

Quoted message said:

SIX MILLION with side effects.

I don't buy the numbers. Evidence for 106 million statin
users? Names of studies or researchers that consider
Pfizer's figures too low? Figures that those questioners
think are more reasonable?

Quoted message said:

It is a good thing you are still employed at 75, because
having an additional six million people on disability
fifteen to twenty years early will take lots more taxes.

Who said I was still employed? I try to write clearly and
accurately; please read in the same spirit. More
important, who says there will be 6,000,000 additional
people disabled from statins? You lose credibility with
this loose use of numbers. You might want to read John
Paulos, "Innumeracy: Mathematical Illiteracy and its
Consequences." Hill and [censored], New York; 1988.

Quoted message said:

Not only are these people disabled and retired early,
drawing social security disability, they are no longer
working and paying their own taxes, and - since many were
high achieving business owners who employed many other
people, they are also no longer providing jobs for others
who would have been paying taxes if their workers were
still employed.

Now you're building a sociopolitical program on faulty
numbers.

Quoted message said:

The obvious solution is to:

Quoted message said:

1) Identify what the statin-damaged have in common
2) Screen these patients out to prevent the damage
3) Identify a treatment for those harmed so they can
recover to a useful life

Quoted message said:

It is a much bigger problem than just some quietly
suffering individuals out of sight and out of mind.

I'm tempted to note that people out of their mind can be a
very big problem, but I'll just note that I'm not
persuaded by anything that follows your speculation about
6% disabled from statins. It's hard to build a tower
without a first storey.

(Zee) said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years at
80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice about
the desirability of the medication."

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it is
aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away from
the person they should be.

B'adant

You see, Don, you could be a statin zombie and not
even know it!

L.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote
in article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> article
> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> >> article
> >> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

>. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off than
> many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You are very fortunate. My husband was totally disabled
by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two years later
after stopping the drug, he is still disabled. You are
also in an age group for which there is very little
evidence of statin efficacy.

Quoted message said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years at
80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice about
the desirability of the medication."

Quoted message said:

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it is
aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quoted message said:

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away from
the person they should be.

What an offensive condescending post!

I understand you've stopped using statins, so to what do you
attribute your taking this tone without realizing it?
--
Don [email hidden]

Yes, that is why I included the dosage in the post. This
month the headlines were urging 80mg per day, based upon 2
industry-funded studies.

The damage my husband sustained was on ONLY 10 mg. dose.

We are acquainted with another gentleman, also in cognitive
rehabilitation therapy, also a formerly CEO, who was
similarly disabled on ONLY 10 mg dose.

According to the author of OVERDOSE! 10 mg. is an
excessively high dosage, as published in an interview
with LA Times Magazine. The article also discussed my
husband's case.

"liam" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:c3ort6$6kr$1@news-
reader3.wanadoo.fr...

Quoted message said:

Sharon Hope said:

My husband was totally disabled by Lipitor (4 years
10mg/day) ...

Isn't that a very small dose ?

liaM regenerating the Qi might help; Qi Gong exercises;
hugging trees; going barefoot in the forest.

You certainly should follow your doctor's advice.

You should also be aware of the adverse effects possible,
and, if you detect any, you should insist that your doctor
address them immediately.

Interesting that they would have prescribed 80mg for 6
years, as the higher dosages were more common more recently.

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

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

And I have no adverse effects after six years at 80mg. I
will continue to follow my doctor's advice about the
desirability of the medication.

Quoted message said:

<snip

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

Quoted message said:

On 23 Mar 2004 15:06:23 -0800, [email hidden]

(Zee) said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it
is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away
from the person they should be.

B'adant

You see, Don, you could be a statin zombie and not even
know it!

L.

Not stated in politically correct (or even humane) terms -
my husband certainly would take offense to your terminology,
if he could follow this ng.

Tragically, however, that is exactly what the families of
cognitively damaged statin patients learn when they interact
with the neuropsych testers, neurologists, alzheimer's
specialists, fronto-temporal dementia specialists, and
cognitive rehabilitation therapists. The patient is unaware
of the magnitude of what he cannot remember. In this
cognitive damage, it is always the family and co-workers who
detect the problem, not the patient.

That is not to say Don is cognitively affected, only that
Zee is accurately reporting the medical wisdom that was
imparted to us by professionals we have seen, at least one
in each of the list above.

By the way, I doubt you care, but you have absolutely no
idea of the courage it takes for a family member to support
a loved one's visit to, for example, a fronto-temporal
dementia specialist, when a quick pre-appointment Google or
Pub Med search indicates that anything this specialist might
identify as the cause for the cognitve deficit translates to
death within 2 years, with no treatment available. Only in
that single narrow context, is the family relieved that it
is 'only' statin damage - even though that is just as
debilitating at the time and also has no known treatment.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 02:45:58 GMT, "Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 23 Mar 2004 15:06:23 -0800, [email hidden]

(Zee) said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it
is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away
from the person they should be.

B'adant

You see, Don, you could be a statin zombie and not even
know it!

L.

Not stated in politically correct (or even humane) terms -
my husband certainly would take offense to your
terminology, if he could follow this ng.

Tragically, however, that is exactly what the families of
cognitively damaged statin patients learn when they
interact with the neuropsych testers, neurologists,
alzheimer's specialists, fronto-temporal dementia
specialists, and cognitive rehabilitation therapists. The
patient is unaware of the magnitude of what he cannot
remember. In this cognitive damage, it is always the family
and co-workers who detect the problem, not the patient.

That is not to say Don is cognitively affected, only that
Zee is accurately reporting the medical wisdom that was
imparted to us by professionals we have seen, at least one
in each of the list above.

By the way, I doubt you care, but you have absolutely no
idea of the courage it takes for a family member to support
a loved one's visit to, for example, a fronto-temporal
dementia specialist, when a quick pre-appointment Google or
Pub Med search indicates that anything this specialist
might identify as the cause for the cognitve deficit
translates to death within 2 years, with no treatment
available. Only in that single narrow context, is the
family relieved that it is 'only' statin damage - even
though that is just as debilitating at the time and also
has no known treatment.

I suppose you and Zee (quite a tag team) think your
condescending lecturing over and over and over again is
postive and helpful.

It's not.

You would both benefit greatly from psychotherapy.

L.

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

Quoted message said:

Sharon Hope said:

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

Quoted message said:

On 23 Mar 2004 15:06:23 -0800, [email hidden] (Zee)
wrote:

>Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six
>years at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's
>advice about the desirability of the medication."
>
>Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that
>is their perception. Quite often the person who is
>cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told
>it is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something
>that everyone does.
>
>Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and
>more and more. Each increment being only mm from the
>previous one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and
>miles away from the person they should be.
>
>B'adant
>
>
You see, Don, you could be a statin zombie and not even
know it!

L.

Not stated in politically correct (or even humane) terms
- my husband certainly would take offense to your
terminology, if he could follow

this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

ng.

Tragically, however, that is exactly what the families of
cognitively damaged statin patients learn when they
interact with the neuropsych testers, neurologists,
alzheimer's specialists, fronto-temporal dementia
specialists, and cognitive rehabilitation therapists. The
patient is unaware of the magnitude of what he cannot
remember. In this cognitive damage, it is always the
family and co-workers who detect the problem,

not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the patient.

That is not to say Don is cognitively affected, only
that Zee is

accurately

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

reporting the medical wisdom that was imparted to us by
professionals we have seen, at least one in each of the
list above.

By the way, I doubt you care, but you have absolutely no
idea of the

courage

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

it takes for a family member to support a loved one's
visit to, for

example,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a fronto-temporal dementia specialist, when a quick pre-
appointment

Google

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or Pub Med search indicates that anything this specialist
might identify

as

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

the cause for the cognitve deficit translates to death
within 2 years,

with

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

no treatment available. Only in that single narrow
context, is the

family

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

relieved that it is 'only' statin damage - even though
that is just as debilitating at the time and also has no
known treatment.

I suppose you and Zee (quite a tag team) think your
condescending lecturing over and over and over again is
postive and helpful.

It's not.

You would both benefit greatly from psychotherapy.

L.

Far greater benefit would be a treatment for the
disabilities Lipitor caused my husband of 35 years. Getting
him better is the therapy of choice.

That, and learning that an effective pre-screening has been
developed so that no other families need go through this.

On Wed, 24 Mar 2004 06:20:38 GMT, "Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I suppose you and Zee (quite a tag team) think your
condescending lecturing over and over and over again is
postive and helpful.

It's not.

You would both benefit greatly from psychotherapy.

L.

Far greater benefit would be a treatment for the
disabilities Lipitor caused my husband of 35 years. Getting
him better is the therapy of choice.

That, and learning that an effective pre-screening has been
developed so that no other families need go through this.

Generally speaking, I agree, but I was not referring to
your husband.

I am referring to you. Personally speaking, I was very
serious. There is help out there for you too.

Just an "anonyomous" suggestion.

L.

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Don Kirkman wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote
in article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
>> article
>> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off
>> than many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You are very fortunate. My husband was totally disabled
>by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two years
>later after stopping the drug, he is still disabled.
>You are also in an age group for which there is very
>little evidence of statin efficacy.

Yes, life is full of good fortune and bad fortune. However,
I do not believe that *my* situation should be attributed
solely to luck while someone else's bad situation is
attributed solely to pharmaceuticals or bad doctoring or to
medical conspiracies. That ignores the entire concept of
risk assessment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it is
aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away from
the person they should be.

Quoted message said:

What an offensive condescending post!

Quoted message said:

I understand you've stopped using statins, so to what do
you attribute your taking this tone without realizing it?

I regret the tone I took here, but I do not regret taking
offense at being talked to as though I were a delinquent
child or an adult out of touch with my surroundings. I have
tried very hard--as have others--to keep these discussions
fact-based and scientifically grounded. I try to live my own
life the same way.
--
Don [email hidden]

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope wrote
in article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
>"]news:[email hidden]...
>> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
>> article
>> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote
>> >> in article <e5f4a9c2.0403202311.5fac6e5a@posting-
>> >> .google.com>:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>>. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off
>> than many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>You are very fortunate. My husband was totally
>disabled by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two
>years later after stopping the drug, he is still
>disabled. You are also in an age group for which there
>is very little evidence of statin efficacy.

Quoted message said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Quoted message said:

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it
is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quoted message said:

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away
from the person they should be.

What an offensive condescending post!

I understand you've stopped using statins, so to what do
you attribute your taking this tone without realizing it?

I would like to point out that your tone to me from the your
first response has been condescending, patronizing and
dismissive.

However to answer your question directly, I was talking
about me. And yes, I am still cognitively impaired by
statins. As a matter of fact I was crying when I wrote it.

It came off in a way I did not intend. I apologize. When I
re-read it I can see how it sounds.

If my posts are too 'real' for you, you can just not read
them, and return to theory.

B'adant

(Zee) said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope
> wrote in article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

> >"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >"]news:[email hidden]...
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> >> article
> >> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

> >> >Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

> >> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote
> >> >> in article <e5f4a9c2.0403202311.5fac6e5a@postin-
> >> >> g.google.com>:

<snip>

Quoted message said:

> >>. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off
> >> than many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

> >You are very fortunate. My husband was totally
> >disabled by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two
> >years later after stopping the drug, he is still
> >disabled. You are also in an age group for which
> >there is very little evidence of statin efficacy.

Quoted message said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Quoted message said:

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it
is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quoted message said:

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away
from the person they should be.

What an offensive condescending post!

I understand you've stopped using statins, so to what do
you attribute your taking this tone without realizing it?

I would like to point out that your tone to me from the
your first response has been condescending, patronizing and
dismissive.

However to answer your question directly, I was talking
about me. And yes, I am still cognitively impaired by
statins. As a matter of fact I was crying when I wrote it.

It came off in a way I did not intend. I apologize. When I
re-read it I can see how it sounds.

If my posts are too 'real' for you, you can just not read
them, and return to theory.

B'adant

How sad and pathetic at the same time. Start with an
unfounded attack, throw in an apology and end with another
swing. You really need help. Your time would be much better
spent talking to a psychotherapist.

L.

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

Quoted message said:

How sad and pathetic at the same time. Start with an
unfounded attack, throw in an apology and end with another
swing. You really need help. Your time would be much
better spent talking to a psychotherapist.

L.

No matter how many times you have been told, no matter how
many ways, you just don't get it.

Lipitor cognitive damage is a physical and chemical damage.

For example, one gentleman on the Lipitor board
forum.ditonline.comviewboard.phpOpen ↗ reported
(confirmed) that upon suffering Lipitor cognitive damage and
realizing it (it takes awhile to actually understand that
there has been a loss of cognition), he had an MRI of the
brain. By some fluke coincidence, he had the results of an
old MRI, taken before he started on the Lipitor. The
results? The size of his brain had actually shrunk in the
same percentage as the decrease in his cholesterol numbers.

Polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy from Lipitor is
associated with demyelination.

Psychotherapists may help with coping with the physical
loss, but they cannot treat or remediate the physical damage
done by the Lipitor.

If you are going to dispense medical advice, you should
understand the problem better, then get qualified.

On Thu, 25 Mar 2004 14:30:59 GMT, "Sharon Hope" <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

How sad and pathetic at the same time. Start with an
unfounded attack, throw in an apology and end with
another swing. You really need help. Your time would be
much better spent talking to a psychotherapist.

L.

No matter how many times you have been told, no matter how
many ways, you just don't get it.

Lipitor cognitive damage is a physical and chemical damage.

For example, one gentleman on the Lipitor board
forum.ditonline.comviewboard.phpOpen ↗
reported (confirmed) that upon suffering Lipitor cognitive
damage and realizing it (it takes awhile to actually
understand that there has been a loss of cognition), he had
an MRI of the brain. By some fluke coincidence, he had the
results of an old MRI, taken before he started on the
Lipitor. The results? The size of his brain had actually
shrunk in the same percentage as the decrease in his
cholesterol numbers.

Polyneuropathy and peripheral neuropathy from Lipitor is
associated with demyelination.

Psychotherapists may help with coping with the physical
loss, but they cannot treat or remediate the physical
damage done by the Lipitor.

If you are going to dispense medical advice, you should
understand the problem better, then get qualified.

Are you saying that Zee should not be held accountable for
anything she posts because of statin damage?

Is that what you're saying?

L.

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Don Kirkman wrote in
article <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Don Kirkman <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:<[email hidden]>...
> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Sharon Hope
> wrote in article <8vP7c.62296$Cb.963030@attbi_s51>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
> >"]news:[email hidden]...
> >> It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in
> >> article
> >> <[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >>. In short, at age 75 I'm probably far better off
> >> than many 60-year-olds.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> >You are very fortunate. My husband was totally
> >disabled by Lipitor (4 years 10mg/day) at age 54. Two
> >years later after stopping the drug, he is still
> >disabled. You are also in an age group for which
> >there is very little evidence of statin efficacy.

Yes, life is full of good fortune and bad fortune.
However, I do not believe that *my* situation should be
attributed solely to luck while someone else's bad
situation is attributed solely to pharmaceuticals or bad
doctoring or to medical conspiracies. That ignores the
entire concept of risk assessment.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Don said: "And I have no adverse effects after six years
at 80mg. I will continue to follow my doctor's advice
about the desirability of the medication."

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Be sure to ask those near and dear to you Don if that is
their perception. Quite often the person who is
cognitively impaired does not realize it, or is told it
is aging, stress, not sleeping properly, something that
everyone does.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quite often the statin user just tolerates more and more
and more. Each increment being only mm from the previous
one, but when seen in hindsight, miles and miles away
from the person they should be.

Quoted message said:

What an offensive condescending post!

Quoted message said:

I understand you've stopped using statins, so to what do
you attribute your taking this tone without realizing it?

I regret the tone I took here, but I do not regret taking
offense at being talked to as though I were a delinquent
child or an adult out of touch with my surroundings. I
have tried very hard--as have others--to keep these
discussions fact-based and scientifically grounded. I try
to live my own life the same way.

I unreservedly apologize to you Don. My previous attempt
was self-centred and self-serving. I am very sorry for the
tone I took in my original post to you and for the apology
that wasn't. I can only say I am sorry and I will try to
do better.

I wish you good health. B'adant

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Zee wrote in article
<[email hidden]>:

Quoted message said:

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

Quoted message said:

It seems to me I heard somewhere that Don Kirkman wrote
in article <[email hidden]>:

[...]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I regret the tone I took here, but I do not regret taking
offense at being talked to as though I were a delinquent
child or an adult out of touch with my surroundings. I
have tried very hard--as have others--to keep these
discussions fact-based and scientifically grounded. I try
to live my own life the same way.

Quoted message said:

I unreservedly apologize to you Don. My previous attempt
was self-centred and self-serving. I am very sorry for the
tone I took in my original post to you and for the apology
that wasn't. I can only say I am sorry and I will try to
do better.

Thank you, Zee. Let's both try to stay more on the content
of our discussions and away from personal comments.
--
Don [email hidden]