THINCS attacked <deep sigh>

[xrn]

a website that carried an article attacking THINCS... makes me wonder where the funding for the following website is coming from.

*http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=22#more-22

My reply is appended (my sincere thanks to Brooks) and it looks set to run for a while.

regards to all...

xrn

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: Actually, the thanks goes to Paisley43 whose post I edited, cut, and emailed to you. I thought it was extremely thought provoking. BTW - I have signed in to the Science Based Med site and find they are already taking exception to the (Paisley) data provided in your comment. They're a rather surly bunch... perhaps they are students yet and just need a little time to mature.

Fond regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

Hi Brooks, nice to 'see' you. I have been really pre-occupied with getting the information you had supplied to me, to people who could possibly do something with it. The struggle is uphill and some days I see no movement but while I can think for myself, I will continue to harry and badger those who would claim authority over my life.

keep your eye on the site because my responses will appear there.

xrn

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: I did sign up and leave a 'brief' rebuttal, but I wasn't in a frame of mind to be prolific. They don't seem disposed to moot discourse in any case, and I tire of sounding redundant. Good luck with this!

Best,

Brooks

[xrn]

Brooks, you are a star. I guess you're right tho'. I don't think a lot of progress will be made there. I may give it another shot later.

you got mail (or will have in a few hours time when I get around to writing it)



cheers!
xrn

[bucho]

It's infuriating to read the propagandists on that web site -- having (barely) lived through a long statin-induced nightmare. These people are a menace, and their need to be "right" seems to overrule the risk of destroying the quality of life for millions. Why don't they respond to the evidence of shoddy research in the studies they like to cite?

I'm approaching my 2-year anniversary (coming in April) off Zocor, and the recovery has reached new highs. I am amazed that recovery can be so slow and yet so sure -- I would have thought that after 1+ years any recovery, however great or small, would be finished. But not so: I'm still getting better, and in fact the last month has brought major progress.

Once again, I'm reinforced in the notion of a 'tree-ring' theory, as if cells are replaced in annual increments. Now that my body is completing the second statin-free tree ring since stopping Zocor, I'm hitting a new recovery plateau.

[xrn]

My reply to Dr Hall...

enjoy because it is unlikely to pass the moderator

xrn

Dr Hall, I'll start with your opening post. Your own words will appear between square brackets, thus: [quote] [unquote]

The tenor of your writing is needlessly and gratuitously offensive, in my considered opinion, especially when you deign to mock clinicians and scientists, from your own lofty vantage point, despite them being honourable clinicians and scientists who have taken great pains to make clear their position vis a vis the cholesterol/heart disease hypothesis.

[quote]There is an organization that calls itself The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (THINCS). Its members “thincâ€

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: I have missed your "hot potato" missives. Dr. Hall ( and Harriet) will do well to remember to hide behind something after they hit the hornet's nest with their too-short stick. Kudos!

Brooks

[xrn]

ain't that the truth. I am still batting for the team, it is just that my game is being played at lots of different locations and levels. e.g. methinks it is long past time to follow up on the indolence at the FDA.

regards Brooks,
xrn

[Brian C.]

What one should be aware of is that the whole "scientific skeptic" movement uses the language of science ("scientism") to aggressively serve corporate interests. If you attempt to make battle on their territory you will be "swarmed" by shills.

Brian.

[cjbrooksjc]

Brian, xrn: This Hall person can't be a practicing dr. can it? Her responses seem intentionally agitative, and some also astoundingly ignorant. I refer you to the following:

"As to why Merck didn’t add CoQ10, I can think of 3 probable reasons right off the bat: not every patient needed it, it was expensive, and until there was better research they couldn’t know that adding it would do more good than harm."

Except for the 'more expensive' element, how uninformed must a physician be to make such absurd statements. This intent of this site MUST be to encourage heated debate and invective. I gave in once again to the impulse to respond to her. It will be my last contribution though; I will not rise to the bait again. Ah, yes, the lower case 'd' above is intentional.

Best,

Brooks

[Ray Holder]

Hi All

I have put my 5 eggs in, twice, I don't think it will dent her thick skin, but one must keep pegging away

Ray

[cjbrooksjc]

Ray, Yes, I read your comments. Much more meat on those bones than on my meagre contribution; very concise, informative, and indisputable. My rant came straight from my glands, passing only briefly through my brain.

Regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

Thank you Brooks & Ray for the excellent support. It appears that I lack an understanding of statistics. I also asked good questions for a first year medical student.

The neurologist also appears quite unwilling to engage with the people who have become part of the number who have been damaged by statins. Of course treating statistics is a well known medical practice.

Kind regards,
xrn

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: You can never know who these 'goobers' are. They may truly be professorial academicians OR second year T.A.s anxious to test their powers of persuasion, or alchemists; that's one fascinating aspect of the internet - the intrigue - who knows what the agenda is on the other end? At least on Spacedoc I'm fairly confident there are no posers... what sort of person would PRETEND to be involved here?

And, actually, for a first year med student, I think you are doing remarkably well!

Best,

Brooks

[cjbrooksjc]

bucho: Glad to hear you are improving!! What is your recovery regimen... supplements, activities, etc?

Regards,

Brooks

[cjbrooksjc]

xrn: I keep forgetting to say that I have rec'd NO response from Dr.'s Parks, Coleman or anyone else in the FDA, though I would give them a few more weeks. Truly, I feel the problem with the FDA is they are understaffed and underfunded (to be euphemistic) , and the inability of the FDA head, current and past, to acquire reasonable operational cash is at the heart of their problems. I AM sympathetic with their plight, but only slightly. I have, in the past, sent them ADR info and written them through my Senator, and so far, have rec'd no replies. As a US federal department, the FDA is a child of a lesser God; no doubt; I don't hold out much hope for our efforts there. But we have to build our audit trails anyway, yes?

Regards,

Brooks

[xrn]

Brooks:
Agreed. The audit trail will eventually be of value. Not replying may well be the mark of underfunded departments but with all that drug money sloshing around, I would have thought that the FDA could run to an e-mail message.

Oh well...

The SMB site looks to be a bust too. It is a place where discourse can only take place according to their rules. ergo Everything we say is valid and correct and everything you say is a lie, wrong and not worth the energy to deal with.

The take-home message is quite simple... you are only people so you don't matter anything worth a damn. <shakes head in disbelief>

I don't suppose the funding for that little enterprise is transparently available but it would be interesting to know where they get the money from.

[bucho]

Brooks, my 2 years of slow but steady recovery has been under the following regimen (may be of interest to others too):

a. 300 mg Q10 daily (100 mg 3x daily),
b. 1200 mg Acetyl L-Carnitine (400 mg 3x daily)
c. "B50" vitamin B complex 1x daily
d. Unrestrained consumption of eggs and meat (6 eggs/week at breakfast, dinners often including 16 oz steak, or chicken, pork, etc., cheese, butter etc. freely as desired).

A key point in the debate about statins: I have maintained the same exercise regimen throughout the process from pre-statin, to statinized, to post-statin. I went through the following changes despite this consistent activity:
1. Pre-statin: Fit/athletic, weekly windsurfing, well-muscled;
2. During statin: Muscle wastage (eventually boney upper arms, shoulders), chronic burning pain in shoulders, triceps, and biceps, uncontrollable muscle twitches and body tremors, forced to lower weight stacks in gym, no endurance, post-exercise exhaustion. Foamy urine and nocturia.
3. Off statin almost 2 years: Arms and shoulders restored, back to old weight stacks, no muscle injuries whatsoever, twitches and tremors gone at last! Still some post-exercise exhaustion but much less. Urine still a little foamy after exercise, but nocturia much less (that progress took a long time).

Even at my one year anniversary off zocor my shoulder muscles would still tremble terribly under load as I performed certain exercises (which previously had caused no trembling prior to statins). But now, as I approach the 2-year anniversary, amazingly enough, I can do that same exercise without any trembling.

My take-away from this is that you can still have problems at your one year anniversary (at which point you will probably think you have them for life), yet they can continue to improve and could be gone by your second anniversary.

Statins side-effects appear to decay in a manner analogous to radioactivity. For me (a 3+ year statin user) they appear to have a half-life of about 1 year, maybe a little less. This would mean 50% recovery at the end of Year 1, 75% recovery at the end of Year 2, 87.5% at Year 3, ..., 99.9% at Year 10, and so on. (Note that you never get to 100%, but I'll gladly settle for 99.9%.....).

Ironically, a review of my past posts will show that the muscle problems were a minor inconvenience compared to the havoc the statin was wreaking inside my cranium. My progress on the cognitive, memory, vision, and mood fronts is equally good. Still have that %#@&-ing tinnitus much of the time though.

My gratitude to all in this forum for keeping up the fight.

[cjbrooksjc]

Bucho: Congrats on your progress. It's about 1 & 1/2 yrs for me now; my 1 yr anniv. (on supplements) was in Oct. I started back at the gym in Dec., but I think that was pushing it some. I'll try again this month. How you worked the gym THROUGH this agonyand survived is a mystery to me. You take a little more ALC than I do; maybe I'll boost that a bit (it couldn't hoit). My memory is better, also vision and, THANK GOD, my mood is back to near normal - who WAS that guy?. Yes, still the tinnitus - worse when I think about it (like now). Good to 'hear' from you again. Keep up the fight.


Regards,

Brooks