Statins, Now what.

It's too late for that once the damage has been done and it's irreversible.

In 1998, when I had my heart attack, the doc chided me for wine consumption, then asked for a recommendation for a good red ;-) ...Jim Thompson

Sure, they can't know if someone else prescribed something but if it was anyone connected with the hospital, it's on there. Even saying that, they're always asking me for the current list, too (often several times a visit). I keep the list on my cell phone.

Yeah, I checked a few of those but what they report isn't anything Earth shattering. Nothing that the individual drugs wouldn't do by themselves.

Well, the body is a pretty complicated drug factory itself. If you listen to the list of side effects of any of the drugs on the teevee, you wouldn't take them. Or food warnings, for that matter (you'd starve to death). ;-)

He was in good shape (60%, 90%, 100%, 100% but never any pain).

Ouch! My brother had a couple of stents about the same time I had surgery. They screwed him over, though. They did one on Friday and then turned it over to their head surgeon. He was pissed because he need bypass surgery but since he already had the stents, he can't have it for a year. Monday they put in another stent and they're treating him with drugs but they're probably going to have to do a bypass next Winter.

#3 brother was the athlete. Up until he died, he swam two miles, three days a week, and exercised the others (IOW in the gym seven days a week). He also ate like a bird and never smoked or drank alcohol. He died in his sleep three years ago, on a vacation in Europe, of sudden cardiac death. The switch just shut off and no one could help him (a defibrillator would have saved his life).

Very true. In 2009, I was doing battle with KSFH (Kidney Stones From Hell). My urologist was monitoring progress using conventional X-ray imaging, which produced blurry photos of little value. After four useless X-ray photos, I suggest perhaps a CAT scan would be more useful. The problem was that the X-rays were $250/ea, while the CAT scan was $1,500. Since I was paying cash, I made a deal with a private imaging group for $900. The resultant CAT scan was amazingly clear and slowed all the rocks and their exact locations.

During the CAT scan, I asked the technician about using image enhancement on conventional X-rays to show details. I received an interesting answer and associated lecture. It seems that the medical profession considers the ability to compare X-rays important. The X-ray machinery is set for specific contrast and sensitivity levels as standardized by some ancient document. By creating all X-rays of the midsection area identically, doctors can compare a recent X-ray, with a previous X-ray, or with some other person's X-ray. The radiologist and X-ray technicians are not allowed to make changes to the settings. That all makes sense, except it's not really necessary in these days of Photoshop and image enhancement software.

After making the appropriate noises, I was allowed to purchase a DVD with most of my X-rays from the hospital radiology department. I had intended to do my own image enhancements, but found that all the images were in a proprietary format with no easy way to convert them to something that Irfanview could read. I also found that if I made any changes to any of the associated files, the proprietary viewer software would immediately claim that my HIPAA privacy rights had been violated and proceeded to destroy all the images and documents in the sub-directory. Several months later, I received a CD from an anonymous source with the necessary image conversion software. Using it and Irfanview, I was able to locate all the larger stones on the original blurry X-rays. I showed my results to the urologist, who just shrugged, and continued to order useless blurry conventional X-rays. When done with the KSFH, I had 6 blurry X-rays and one clear CAT scan.

A friend and former customer is a dentist who manufactures endodonic (root canal) tools and burrs. He also gives continuing education classes on his method of doing a proper root canal. At one time, he pointed out that few dentists after about the WWII era had seen a proper dental X-ray. The best I could respond was "huh"? It seems that high power X-rays were deemed dangerous which inspired regulators to reduce patient exposure limit. Ordinarily, this would be a good thing, except that the lower beam power had a detrimental effect on resolution. The safe images were blurry, while the older dangerous images were quite clear. I went through a pile of old film X-rays and no difficulty recognizing the difference when compared to later film dental X-rays. Fortunately, todays dental X-rays are done with CCD/CMOS imagers where image enhancement is allowed. The result seem better than the old film dangerous X-ray images.

As for measurements, I've experience a series of medical adventures between 2001 and about 2010 that involved a fair number of lab tests. I would guess that at least 10% were screwed up in some manner by a mix of procedural, handling, documentation, and transcription errors.

Dont' Statins produce short term memory problems, or did the manufacturers debunk that too.

Cheers

I can't recall that !

Jamie

There are many reports, literature and anecdotes online for you to research the problem yourself: I think you'll find that the reports and research to be as erratic as the symptoms. I can add my experiences to maximize the confusion.

I took statins from 2001 through 2009. During that time, I experienced a few odd memory problems, but nothing serious or fatal. The problem was that I couldn't tell if they were the result of taking statins, a triple bypass operation, or a minor stroke, all of which occurred nearly simultaneously. What happened was:

1. My ability to recall piano pieces became erratic. That included pieces that I wrote, which I should have been able to recall. However, if I waited anywhere between about 5 mins to an hour, everything would come back. Unfortunately, my composition and playing remained poor. After I stopped taking statins, my ability to recall obscure piano pieces improved, but never totally returned to pre-statin levels.
2. My ability to remember to appear for promised appointments deteriorated. Like the music, the effect was erratic but recoverable. I resorted to buying a PDA and later a smartphone in order to avoid any further missed appointments. However, when I stopped taking statins, nothing changed.
3. My ability to recall common numbers was also erratic. At times, I would temporarily forget important phone numbers, PIN numbers, and passwords. However, all I had to do was distract myself with something else, and the missing memories would return. My recall of names and faces had also become erratic. It's much the same today, but to a lesser degree.
4. My ability to do math in my head was never very good and had seriously deteriorated after 2001. I'm not sure if that was due to statins, a minor stroke, or creeping dementia. At this time, I still have problems, even when using a calculator. Again, I can recover somewhat if I walk away from the problem for 5 to 60 minutes.
5. My ability to write long Usenet rants, critical reviews, vitriolic denunciations, acerbic wit, horrid poetry, and marginal character assassinations has greatly improved after taking statins. The effect seems permanent. Since I stopped taking statins 5 years ago, only my spelling has failed to improve.

hoo needz spealing ennyway

NT

Do as I say, not as I do.

In about the same time period, I visited a doctor who advised me that I needed to loose some mass. I had some difficulty accepting his advice as he was radically overweight.

Somewhat later, I was discussing my assorted maladies with a different doctor. Eventually, the discussion drifted over to his computah problems, on which I expounded in detail. That was not a problem, until I discovered that his office had billed me for the time. It was easier to send him a bill for my computer consulting time than getting his billing service to amend his bill.

Most doctors and lawyers practice a policy of not giving free advice outside the office. Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to apply to computah consultants, who stupidly offer free advice in all manner of strange places and times. I became tired of this and diplomatically suggested to one doctor that unloading his computah problems could best be performed in my palatial office, where I could more easily submit a bill for my services. I estimated that this cost me about

Lesson learned: Doctors are different.

Whatever drugs you are taking are obviously affecting your spelling. I recommend statins which should improve your spelling.

"I have nothing but contempt for anyone who can spell a word only one way." (Mark Twain).

For me, writing a Usenet rant is a 5 step process.

1. Write the rant. This is the easiest part as it involves little thought, tact, diplomacy, accuracy, or care. At this point the spelling is usually correct, but nothing else is.
2. If I have the time, I go away and do something else. This is primarily to compensate for the minor brain damage caused by statins and allow me to take a fresh look at whatever I scribbled.
3. On second inspection, my initial reaction is usually "Did I really write this rubbish"? This initiates the editing phase, where I repair my mistakes, adjust my logic, double check my chronically faulty arithmetic, add some random supporting URL's, and generally clean up the mess. Unfortunately, this is also where I add additional math, grammar and spelling errors. If you find they types of errors, you now know how they happened.
4. I then run the spelling chequer, which fixes the obscure spelling errors, but does nothing for the logic, grammar and math errors.
5. I punch the "send" button and instantly see a half dozen assorted errors, but it's too late. I find a blank wall and quietly beat my head against it.

Like sausage, you really don't want to know how Usenet rants are made.

Heh. There's just one problem with that process.... here's a now famous let ter:

James,

Sincere apologies for not replying to you today, as it happens I actually h ave a job, and other things to do with my day other than reply to you, when I had already had the misfortune of wasting 30 very long minutes of my lif e speaking to; not only the most inappropriate person for this job role, bu t probably for any role, you will spend the next few years applying for, on ly to get rejected as soon as they meet you.

You are without doubt one of the most irritating, rude, obnoxious and arrog ant people I have had the misfortune to meet, and your email just solidifie s this.

Also, for an old aesthetically challenged guy with no teeth you have an unb elievable amount of confidence!

So you say, you didn't notice the word 'professional' on our website... bel ive me, if I had been anything other than 'professional', I would have told you what I was actually thinking which was 'this guy is an absolute ****, get the **** out'.

But no, alas, I stayed 'professional'. I only wish I'd have seen your CV be forehand, to save us both the time, as I would have probably noticed your m ain job role as 'professional p****'.

Good luck for the future

Sarah

NT

I have no trouble with concepts. But, if I have to put a word to it, I get stumped easily. I have no trouble with the math E=I*R, but I sometimes can't attach "ohm's law" to the concept. I sometimes can't remember the name of my neighbor of 10 years. I'm also having dyslexia problems with my typing. Thank $Diety for spellcheck. Most of my contemporary friends have similar issues.

Hi,

Even if statin's didn't have side effects, they would not be useful to take:

Just recently the dietary guidelines in USA made the drastic change to say that dietary cholesterol isn't harmful:

Statin drug development had the premise that cholesterol is harmful, once the patents run out and no more money is to be made then the people who follow mainstream health advice will buy into the next miracle pill incorrect theory instead of following their own common sense ie. avoid processed foods and eat organic/pasture raised animals if possible, as has been done all through history by everyone up until the corporate take over of the food supply.

cheers, Jamie

On 2/21/2015 5:34 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote: I showed my results to the urologist, who

And all said and done, did the pictures matter? Were you diagnosed with kidney stones before the xray? I'm sure you had them after the xray. I had sciatica and back pain, doc said I had a herniated disc. I went for a year or a little more, then I pushed for an MRI. It showed I had a herniated disc! The second one I pushed for showed the same thing. Just what my doc said. They were fun to look at on my computer, but not $380 worth, twice. 4 years 10 months now, I'm still trying to avoid surgery.

Mikek

Right, let's go back to the days before modern medicine, too. You first. ;)

I've been on a moderate dose of atorvastatin for about a decade. My LDL went down by about 90 points, and I've had no side effects that I've noticed.

The premise of the article seems to be that it's misleading to say that reducing a 2% per annum risk to 1% per annum halves the risk, but what else would you say? If it isn't at least 50% per annum to start with, there's no way to halve it?

Of course, the size of the risk is important. Halving a risk of 2 ppm isn't worth much, but 2% p.a. is big enough to think about.

Overall it sounds like grandstanding to me.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

I want a copy Aug, 1990 of 'Endo for GP's' with the headline "GP Does Endo Without Gutta Percha'. Why can't he send them out? Interesting page. Mikek

Oddly I phoned a former employer of 21 years ago, in a different state and remembered the area code and phone number. But I might not remember something my wife told me yesterday! I have forgot my best friends number from 40 years ago though. Mikek

People often lose sight of the fact that medicine is *practiced* (OTOH, science is *done*). What is *known* would fill a large library! What

It was only a few generations ago that 45 was "old age".

SWMBO is "finally" on a statin having been borderline for many years. We "fought" initial attempts to get her on meds by countering with dietary changes (bringing her numbers from "way too high" down to the high end of the "permissible" range in very short order).

While unhappy with this decision, she's agreed to try it for a few months -- giving due notice to the MD that if the side effects manifest, she'll discontinue the meds and "take her chances".

It also depends a lot on what the consequences (those without the meds *and* any side effects *with* the meds) happen to be!

E.g., I have reasonably severe "seasonal allergies". The consequences of doing nothing for them leave me very uncomfortable, unable to sleep, struggling for "air", etc. (but, don't directly threaten my *life*!).

OTOH, some of the side effects of the meds are worse than (or identical to!) the symptoms they intend to alleviate! (Warning: May cause difficulty breathing, runny nose, irritated eyes...)

There are incentives in certain groups to publish (instead of "practice").