"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
<9H7Za.70871$cF.22719@rwcrnsc53>:
Quoted message said:"Don Kirkman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...
There is such a thing as enlightened risk
aversion as well as obsessive risk aversion.
Absolutely - ENLIGHTENED risk aversion. Do a search on the NIH pub med site
on the terms "statin" and "memory" and see how many hits you get: 1
There is no ENLIGHTENED acknowledgement of the side effect in the US, and
therefore no patient is aware they are taking the risk. Worse, their
doctors are also unaware, and therefore they don't watch for it, nor do they
consider it a reason for discontinuing the drug.
Australia's FDA-equivalent recognized memory loss is associated with statins
and published it as a known adverse effect in 1998.
Quoted message said:Could Dr. Faxon have been talking specifically about Baycol, which as we
all know did have problems and is no longer available, and not of
statins as a class?
Dr. Faxon was talking to me about my husband, disabled by Lipitor. A 55
year old man, twice a CEO, who after 4 years of Lipitor scores BELOW the 1
percentile in short-term memory (along with a long list of other adverse
effects, including myopathy, myositis, peripheral neuropathy, aphasia, and
multiple on-Lipitor Transient Global Amnesia events, muscle wasting, and
extreme exercise intolerance.) My husband, who like many many others, did
not recover by merely discontinuing the drug, and still is disabled 19
months off the drug.
Not Baycol, not generalities, not enlightened risk taking, my husband of 34+
years.
It is my home and my family he was referring to when he said it did not
matter how rare these KNOWN (but not well documented) adverse effects are,
if they happen to your family they are 100%.
The point is that people need to know to make ENLIGHTENED risk decisions.
Not addresing the problem, not developing a method of screening out patients
who are candidates for disability, not developing a treatment is not
supporting decisions of risk. It is unconscionable.
Quoted message said:--
Don
[email hidden]
