Egann said:
KHlover said:
Egann said:
My mother is actually part of a lawsuit against a drug company. They gave her an osteoperosis drug which was known to cause necrosis of the jaw. Of course, they didn't tell her.
She also was almost given Alzheimers by her statin drugs.
This is terrible news. Not only do doctors receive money from the drug companies for prescribing their drugs, but they're now immune to legal action? This is terrible. It's a fantastic example of our government obeying the lobbyists and doing the thing least in our interest.
|
http://www.fightdementia.org.au/alzheimers-australia-official-statement-statins-and-dementia.aspx
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2012/04april/Pages/papers-claim-statins-stop-alzheimers.aspx
According to these articles it seems like Statin has no significant relation to Alzheimer's at all. We don't even know what actually causes Alzheimer's yet. And even if Statin led to permanent cognitive side-effects (which according to the FDA it doesn't, as stated in above link) it still would only have increased the probabilty to suffer from Alzheimer's, not caused it. That's a major difference. If that stuff really, without fail actually caused Alzheimer's, it would be banned ASAP.
|
True-ish, but in medicine there is no such thing as taking something and it 100% always causing an effect. Phineas Gage comes to mind: people usually don't survive having a railroad spike blast through their cranium and take a teacup worth of gray matter with it.
That said, statins are linked to all sorts of mental illnesses. Schitzophrenia, paralysis, and general damage to the nervous system. Taking this stuff for extended periods of time is literally psychosis in a bottle, and heart attack survivors are supposed to take them indefinitely.
http://www.westonaprice.org/cardiovascular-disease/dangers-of-statin-drugs
Taking statins for one year raised the risk of nerve damage by about 15 percent--about one case for every 2,200 patients. For those who took statins for two or more years, the additional risk rose to 26 percent.
|
Hm, not sure what to make of this article. On one hand, she doesn't seem to be a scam (One of her dissertations was reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine afterall), but on the other hand the tone of the article was very inflammatory and at times heavily relied on anecdotical evidence, which isn't worth a damn and shows bias.
