Skip to comments.A Risk in Cholesterol Drugs Is Detected, but Is It Real?
Posted on 07/03/2007 3:00:09 PM PDT by Dysart
As he examined data on a computer one day last fall, drug-safety reviewer Ralph Edwards saw something that concerned him: Of 172 people in his database who developed Lou Gehrig's disease or something similar while taking prescription medicines, 40 had been on statins, the huge-selling cholesterol drugs.
Dr. Edwards, director of the World Health Organization's drug-monitoring center, has amassed about four million reports of medical problems experienced by people taking prescription drugs. His job is to sift through these so-called adverse events, looking for "signals" of potential side effects.
The number of Lou Gehrig's cases associated with statins struck Dr. ...
(Excerpt) Read more at online.wsj.com ...
Disconcerting to you perhaps but there are trial lawyers like Edwards who have just been presented a potential gold mine.
Articles like these are the reason the dope heads with communication degrees from big ten schools like PSU have jobs; the only other jobs they would be capable of holding down are those in Mexico, doing the jobs Mexicans don’t want to do!
Yeah, I understand that perilous mixture— gave up the firewater quite some time ago. No drug is without some risks, but I estimate the benefits outweigh the risks with this drug, esp at low doses.
Sure does. The drug testing protocols have experienced past problems.
Who knows, there could be a cure for cancer out there that isn’t being released because of the potential for lawsuits. Nothing in life can be completely safe (even staying in bed can cause bed sores), but the John Edwards of the world are determined to keep us in the dark ages (for a profit).
If you have the data on what drugs people take, and what diseases they contract, a computer should be able to pop up any statistical correlations fairly quickly. That is only the beginning, however, as much more investigation would be required.
Last panel: LDL 72, HDL 52, TC 160.
Down from heart attack threatening levels.
Ain’t much one can do that doesn’t carry some risk. But my statins? FMCDH!
How did you conclude that from this article?
From the Mayo Clinic web site:
There is no evidence of a link between statins and amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), also known as Lou Gehrig’s disease.
ALS is a serious degenerative neurological disorder that is due to disease and death of the nerve cells in the brain and spinal cord that control voluntary muscles. ALS may begin with muscle twitching, weakness in an arm or leg, or changes in speech (dysarthria). Eventually, it affects the ability to control the muscles needed to move, speak, eat and breathe.
Statins are medications prescribed for the treatment of high cholesterol. These medications can sometimes cause muscle pain (myalgia), muscle weakness and rarely severe muscle damage (rhabdomyolysis). But these occur as a result of direct muscle damage, not damage to nerve cells.
In this particular instance it may be justified. I have been saying for year that when the statin issue explodes, it will be bigger than thalidomide, the Schiley Heart Valve, and everything since.
The cholesterol goalposts keep being moved downward. Billions and billions are at stake. Ideally, _everyone_ should take them, according to the manufacturer-backed researchers. Try to get follow-on funding if you find otherwise.
There is nothing altruistic about these compounds.
In 1998, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) placed a ban on the sale of dietary supplements derived from red yeast rice, which naturally contains lovastatin, arguing that products containing prescription agents require drug approval.
Now the door was open for patenting and mass marketing.
I and my wife have first hand experience with side effects that are serious, and references to these keep popping up everywhere.
Something is wrong here. And even if it takes the Silk Pony to do it, someday there will be a lot of stockholders in these manufacturers leaping from windows, and companies are going to be held accountable.
A person may well have ALS for years prior to it becoming clinically obvious. The interval to awareness may be accelerated by the statin, but not likely the ALS itself.
I have observed this correlation in persons already known to have ALS. If put on a statin, the symptoms were clearly magnified. If the statins removed, the symptoms revert to their prior baseline.
I suspect this correlation is what is being demonstrated in the researcher's statistics.
I was taking Lipitor but it was causing my liver enzymes to run amok. I don't drink alcoholic beverages because I'm also diabetic and take thyroid and hypertension medications. Since I've been off the Lipitor, they've checked my liver function on two separate occasions and they were normal both times. And fortunately, I've been able to keep my cholesterol level within normal range by just watching what I eat.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.