[polygonum]

Crops up regularly, always gets response, so here goes:


Statins and Musculoskeletal Conditions, Arthropathies, and Injuries
ONLINE FIRST
Ishak Mansi, MD; Christopher R. Frei, PharmD, MSc; Mary Jo Pugh, PhD;
Una Makris, MD; Eric M. Mortensen, MD, MSc
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;():1-9. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6184


Importance Statin use may be associated with increased musculoskeletal
adverse events, especially in physically active individuals.

Objective To determine whether statin use is associated with
musculoskeletal conditions, including arthropathy and injury, in a
military health care system.

Design A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Setting San Antonio Military Multi-Market.

Participants Tricare Prime/Plus beneficiaries evaluated from October 1,
2003, to March 1, 2010.

Interventions Statin use during fiscal year 2005. On the basis of
medication fills, patients were divided into 2 groups: statin users
(received a statin for at least 90 days) and nonusers (never received a
statin throughout the study period).

Main Outcomes and Measures Using patients' baseline characteristics, we
generated a propensity score that was used to match statin users and
nonusers; odds ratios (ORs) were determined for each outcome measure.
Secondary analyses determined adjusted ORs for all patients who met
study criteria and a subgroup of patients with no comorbidities
identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Sensitivity analysis
further determined adjusted ORs for a subgroup of patients with no
musculoskeletal diseases at baseline and a subgroup of patients who
continued statin therapy for 2 years or more. The occurrence of
musculoskeletal conditions was determined using prespecified groups of
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
ClinicalModification codes: Msk1, all musculoskeletal diseases; Msk1a,
arthropathies and related diseases; Msk1b, injury-related diseases
(dislocation, sprain, strain); and Msk2, drug-associated musculoskeletal
pain.

Results A total of 46 249 individuals met study criteria (13 626 statin
users and 32 623 nonusers). Of these, we propensity score–matched 6967
statin users with 6967 nonusers. Among matched pairs, statin users had a
higher OR for Msk1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30), Msk1b (1.13;
1.05-1.21), and Msk2 (1.09; 1.02-1.18); the OR for Msk1a was 1.07
(0.99-1.16; P = .07). Secondary and sensitivity analyses revealed higher
adjusted ORs for statin users in all outcome groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Musculoskeletal conditions, arthropathies,
injuries, and pain are more common among statin users than among similar
nonusers. The full spectrum of statins' musculoskeletal adverse events
may not be fully explored, and further studies are warranted, especially
in physically active individuals.


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1691918

--
Rod

[Brian Gaff]

?
Why here?

Brian

--
From the Sofa of Brian Gaff Reply address is active
"polygonum" wrote in message
...
Crops up regularly, always gets response, so here goes:


Statins and Musculoskeletal Conditions, Arthropathies, and Injuries ONLINE
FIRST
Ishak Mansi, MD; Christopher R. Frei, PharmD, MSc; Mary Jo Pugh, PhD; Una
Makris, MD; Eric M. Mortensen, MD, MSc
JAMA Intern Med. 2013;():1-9. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6184


Importance Statin use may be associated with increased musculoskeletal
adverse events, especially in physically active individuals.

Objective To determine whether statin use is associated with
musculoskeletal conditions, including arthropathy and injury, in a
military health care system.

Design A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Setting San Antonio Military Multi-Market.

Participants Tricare Prime/Plus beneficiaries evaluated from October 1,
2003, to March 1, 2010.

Interventions Statin use during fiscal year 2005. On the basis of
medication fills, patients were divided into 2 groups: statin users
(received a statin for at least 90 days) and nonusers (never received a
statin throughout the study period).

Main Outcomes and Measures Using patients' baseline characteristics, we
generated a propensity score that was used to match statin users and
nonusers; odds ratios (ORs) were determined for each outcome measure.
Secondary analyses determined adjusted ORs for all patients who met study
criteria and a subgroup of patients with no comorbidities identified using
the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Sensitivity analysis further determined
adjusted ORs for a subgroup of patients with no musculoskeletal diseases
at baseline and a subgroup of patients who continued statin therapy for 2
years or more. The occurrence of musculoskeletal conditions was determined
using prespecified groups of International Classification of Diseases,
Ninth Revision, ClinicalModification codes: Msk1, all musculoskeletal
diseases; Msk1a, arthropathies and related diseases; Msk1b, injury-related
diseases (dislocation, sprain, strain); and Msk2, drug-associated
musculoskeletal pain.

Results A total of 46 249 individuals met study criteria (13 626 statin
users and 32 623 nonusers). Of these, we propensity score–matched 6967
statin users with 6967 nonusers. Among matched pairs, statin users had a
higher OR for Msk1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30), Msk1b (1.13; 1.05-1.21),
and Msk2 (1.09; 1.02-1.18); the OR for Msk1a was 1.07 (0.99-1.16; P =
.07). Secondary and sensitivity analyses revealed higher adjusted ORs for
statin users in all outcome groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Musculoskeletal conditions, arthropathies,
injuries, and pain are more common among statin users than among similar
nonusers. The full spectrum of statins' musculoskeletal adverse events may
not be fully explored, and further studies are warranted, especially in
physically active individuals.


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1691918

--
Rod

[polygonum]

On 08/06/2013 10:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
?
Why here?

Brian

Because in early May there was a long and involved thread about statins
which seem to be of interest to many. The demographics of this group
(from my perception) suggest that statins will have been offered to a
large proportion of correspondents.

--
Rod

[John Williamson]

polygonum wrote:
On 08/06/2013 10:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
?
Why here?

Brian

Because in early May there was a long and involved thread about statins
which seem to be of interest to many. The demographics of this group
(from my perception) suggest that statins will have been offered to a
large proportion of correspondents.

In the UK, as a matter of policy, *all* adult diabetics are pushed onto
statins as early as possible unless they show contra-indictaing side
effects.

The theory is that, as far as cardiac health is concerned, being
diabetic is equivalent to having had your first heart attack.

--
Tciao for Now!

John.

[David.WE.Roberts]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 10:48:00 +0100, John Williamson wrote:

polygonum wrote:
On 08/06/2013 10:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
?
Why here?

Brian

Because in early May there was a long and involved thread about statins
which seem to be of interest to many. The demographics of this group
(from my perception) suggest that statins will have been offered to a
large proportion of correspondents.

In the UK, as a matter of policy, *all* adult diabetics are pushed onto
statins as early as possible unless they show contra-indictaing side
effects.

The theory is that, as far as cardiac health is concerned, being
diabetic is equivalent to having had your first heart attack.

Although they are now backtracking on this one last I heard (although I am
struggling to remember why).

Something about the risks of a heart attack in diabetics not being caused
by the same factors as the risks in one-attack non-diabetics.

Another fine example of correlation not implying causation.

However they are now suggesting statins for everyone because the reckon
that the industry deserves the money - ...ummmm.. - the number and
seriousness of heart attacks avoided is more than the number and
seriousness of side effects.

Allegedly.

Oh, and what happened to a small dose of aspirin every day?
IIRC that was a suggestion when I was first diagnosed.

Cheers

Dave R

[Andy Burns[_8_]]

David.WE.Roberts wrote:

However they are now suggesting statins for everyone
what happened to a small dose of aspirin every day?

And a low dose of ACE inhibitor, or rolling all three into a "polypill"

[polygonum]

On 08/06/2013 13:29, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
Oh, and what happened to a small dose of aspirin every day?
IIRC that was a suggestion when I was first diagnosed.

My mother is now on 75mg aspirin having (apparently, allegedly) having
had a heart attack while in hospital for something else entirely. So she
also was prescribed omeprazole to "protect and line" her stomach and
prevent the aspirin causing any bleeding. And one of her other medicines
also tends to reduce clotting and hence make any bleeds more likely to
continue. And they insist on Simvastatin.

I did argue against omeprazole and, so long as she does not get
heartburn/reflux more than twice a week, they accepted her stopping
that. Now around two weeks off it and the only slight issue was on the
second or third day after stopping.

So stomach issues are a reason.

--
Rod

[David.WE.Roberts]

On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:55:37 +0100, polygonum wrote:

Crops up regularly, always gets response, so here goes:


Statins and Musculoskeletal Conditions, Arthropathies, and Injuries
ONLINE FIRST Ishak Mansi, MD; Christopher R. Frei, PharmD, MSc; Mary Jo
Pugh, PhD; Una Makris, MD; Eric M. Mortensen, MD, MSc JAMA Intern Med.
2013;():1-9. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6184


Importance Statin use may be associated with increased musculoskeletal
adverse events, especially in physically active individuals.

Objective To determine whether statin use is associated with
musculoskeletal conditions, including arthropathy and injury, in a
military health care system.

Design A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Setting San Antonio Military Multi-Market.

Participants Tricare Prime/Plus beneficiaries evaluated from October 1,
2003, to March 1, 2010.

Interventions Statin use during fiscal year 2005. On the basis of
medication fills, patients were divided into 2 groups: statin users
(received a statin for at least 90 days) and nonusers (never received a
statin throughout the study period).

Main Outcomes and Measures Using patients' baseline characteristics, we
generated a propensity score that was used to match statin users and
nonusers; odds ratios (ORs) were determined for each outcome measure.
Secondary analyses determined adjusted ORs for all patients who met
study criteria and a subgroup of patients with no comorbidities
identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Sensitivity analysis
further determined adjusted ORs for a subgroup of patients with no
musculoskeletal diseases at baseline and a subgroup of patients who
continued statin therapy for 2 years or more. The occurrence of
musculoskeletal conditions was determined using prespecified groups of
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
ClinicalModification codes: Msk1, all musculoskeletal diseases; Msk1a,
arthropathies and related diseases; Msk1b, injury-related diseases
(dislocation, sprain, strain); and Msk2, drug-associated musculoskeletal
pain.

Results A total of 46 249 individuals met study criteria (13 626 statin
users and 32 623 nonusers). Of these, we propensity score€“matched 6967
statin users with 6967 nonusers. Among matched pairs, statin users had a
higher OR for Msk1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30), Msk1b (1.13;
1.05-1.21), and Msk2 (1.09; 1.02-1.18); the OR for Msk1a was 1.07
(0.99-1.16; P = .07). Secondary and sensitivity analyses revealed higher
adjusted ORs for statin users in all outcome groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Musculoskeletal conditions, arthropathies,
injuries, and pain are more common among statin users than among similar
nonusers. The full spectrum of statins' musculoskeletal adverse events
may not be fully explored, and further studies are warranted, especially
in physically active individuals.


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1691918



Thanks - interesting stuff and uk.d-i-y is IMHO a good place to post OT
stuff :-)

My brain fried early on with the big words.

Are they saying that they managed to select two matching groups with the
same condition (presumably high cholesterol) where one group had statin
therapy and the other didn't?

Does make me wonder how they treated the control group - or why they
didn't.

Otherwise there would be the issue of underlying conditions linked to the
requirement for statins.

OTOH isn't it generally accepted that some statins (such as Symvastatin)
do have adverse side effects for a number of users (myself included before
I stopped using them)?

In which case this is just confirming what the brochure with the pills
tells you.

The brochure for Pravastatin says that more than one in 1,000 people may
suffer from side effects including muscle and joint pain, with more
serious side effects for more than 1 in 10,000 people.

So is the research highlighting something more significant than that
published by the drug manufacturer?

Cheers

Dave R

[polygonum]

On 08/06/2013 13:40, David.WE.Roberts wrote:
On Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:55:37 +0100, polygonum wrote:

Crops up regularly, always gets response, so here goes:


Statins and Musculoskeletal Conditions, Arthropathies, and Injuries
ONLINE FIRST Ishak Mansi, MD; Christopher R. Frei, PharmD, MSc; Mary Jo
Pugh, PhD; Una Makris, MD; Eric M. Mortensen, MD, MSc JAMA Intern Med.
2013;():1-9. doi:10.1001/jamainternmed.2013.6184


Importance Statin use may be associated with increased musculoskeletal
adverse events, especially in physically active individuals.

Objective To determine whether statin use is associated with
musculoskeletal conditions, including arthropathy and injury, in a
military health care system.

Design A retrospective cohort study with propensity score matching.

Setting San Antonio Military Multi-Market.

Participants Tricare Prime/Plus beneficiaries evaluated from October 1,
2003, to March 1, 2010.

Interventions Statin use during fiscal year 2005. On the basis of
medication fills, patients were divided into 2 groups: statin users
(received a statin for at least 90 days) and nonusers (never received a
statin throughout the study period).

Main Outcomes and Measures Using patients' baseline characteristics, we
generated a propensity score that was used to match statin users and
nonusers; odds ratios (ORs) were determined for each outcome measure.
Secondary analyses determined adjusted ORs for all patients who met
study criteria and a subgroup of patients with no comorbidities
identified using the Charlson Comorbidity Index. Sensitivity analysis
further determined adjusted ORs for a subgroup of patients with no
musculoskeletal diseases at baseline and a subgroup of patients who
continued statin therapy for 2 years or more. The occurrence of
musculoskeletal conditions was determined using prespecified groups of
International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Revision,
ClinicalModification codes: Msk1, all musculoskeletal diseases; Msk1a,
arthropathies and related diseases; Msk1b, injury-related diseases
(dislocation, sprain, strain); and Msk2, drug-associated musculoskeletal
pain.

Results A total of 46 249 individuals met study criteria (13 626 statin
users and 32 623 nonusers). Of these, we propensity score€“matched 6967
statin users with 6967 nonusers. Among matched pairs, statin users had a
higher OR for Msk1 (OR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.08-1.30), Msk1b (1.13;
1.05-1.21), and Msk2 (1.09; 1.02-1.18); the OR for Msk1a was 1.07
(0.99-1.16; P = .07). Secondary and sensitivity analyses revealed higher
adjusted ORs for statin users in all outcome groups.

Conclusions and Relevance Musculoskeletal conditions, arthropathies,
injuries, and pain are more common among statin users than among similar
nonusers. The full spectrum of statins' musculoskeletal adverse events
may not be fully explored, and further studies are warranted, especially
in physically active individuals.


http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/arti...icleid=1691918



Thanks - interesting stuff and uk.d-i-y is IMHO a good place to post OT
stuff :-)

My brain fried early on with the big words.

Are they saying that they managed to select two matching groups with the
same condition (presumably high cholesterol) where one group had statin
therapy and the other didn't?

Does make me wonder how they treated the control group - or why they
didn't.

Otherwise there would be the issue of underlying conditions linked to the
requirement for statins.

OTOH isn't it generally accepted that some statins (such as Symvastatin)
do have adverse side effects for a number of users (myself included before
I stopped using them)?

In which case this is just confirming what the brochure with the pills
tells you.

The brochure for Pravastatin says that more than one in 1,000 people may
suffer from side effects including muscle and joint pain, with more
serious side effects for more than 1 in 10,000 people.

So is the research highlighting something more significant than that
published by the drug manufacturer?

Cheers

Dave R

There seem to be some extra things like dislocation, sprain and strain.
Plus the specific association between amount of exercise and likelihood
of one of the identified issues occurring. Obviously that is of
particular significance to the military.

The current Patient Information Leaflets in the UK seem to be
word-for-word identical except for things like maker's name,
ingredients, etc.

http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/sear...=Qui ckSearch

--
Rod

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , polygonum
writes
On 08/06/2013 10:20, Brian Gaff wrote:
?
Why here?

Brian

Because in early May there was a long and involved thread about statins
which seem to be of interest to many. The demographics of this group
(from my perception) suggest that statins will have been offered to a
large proportion of correspondents.

My fault!

It seemed a fitting subject for our age group and I'd rather ask
opinions of friends/aquaintances than strangers.

Currently I am reaching the end of a *two week off* followed by *two
weeks on* to try and spot any side effects.

The next part of the plan is to halve the dose and then get another
blood test.

I may try to get my insulin levels checked as there seems to be some
linkage.


--
Tim Lamb

[Arfa Daily]

snip


OTOH isn't it generally accepted that some statins (such as Symvastatin)
do have adverse side effects for a number of users (myself included before
I stopped using them)?

In which case this is just confirming what the brochure with the pills
tells you.

The brochure for Pravastatin says that more than one in 1,000 people may
suffer from side effects including muscle and joint pain, with more
serious side effects for more than 1 in 10,000 people.

So is the research highlighting something more significant than that
published by the drug manufacturer?

Cheers

Dave R

Every year when I have my review for my (alleged) high blood pressure, the
doctor recommends to the practice nurse that handles the review, that I
start on statins for what she considers to be cholesterol problems, and what
I consider to be a slightly (against the average) elevated level. And every
year I refuse them. It's reached the point now where the nurse says "Doctor
xxx has recommended that you start on statins, but you're not going to do
that, are you ...?"

I don't tolerate medication well in the first place. I went through a lot of
different types of blood pressure medication before we finally found one
that didn't have significant side effects - to the point where I was almost
saying "enough already !"

I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got side
effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit, they've added
all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him taking for perceived
conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck compared to the fit and vital
person he was before they got started. He has now completely lost his sense
of taste, and shakes all the time. Sometimes, I think you are better off
living with the risks than using long term meds to try to eliminate them. I
also think that a lot of the 'life-threatening' conditions that they insist
on trying to treat you for, are just fads.

Arfa

[Tim+]

"Arfa Daily" wrote:
snip


OTOH isn't it generally accepted that some statins (such as Symvastatin)
do have adverse side effects for a number of users (myself included before
I stopped using them)?

In which case this is just confirming what the brochure with the pills
tells you.

The brochure for Pravastatin says that more than one in 1,000 people may
suffer from side effects including muscle and joint pain, with more
serious side effects for more than 1 in 10,000 people.

So is the research highlighting something more significant than that
published by the drug manufacturer?

Cheers

Dave R

Every year when I have my review for my (alleged) high blood pressure,
the doctor recommends to the practice nurse that handles the review, that
I start on statins for what she considers to be cholesterol problems, and
what I consider to be a slightly (against the average) elevated level.
And every year I refuse them. It's reached the point now where the nurse
says "Doctor xxx has recommended that you start on statins, but you're
not going to do that, are you ...?"

I don't tolerate medication well in the first place. I went through a lot
of different types of blood pressure medication before we finally found
one that didn't have significant side effects - to the point where I was
almost saying "enough already !"

I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got side
effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit, they've added
all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him taking for perceived
conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck compared to the fit and vital
person he was before they got started. He has now completely lost his
sense of taste, and shakes all the time. Sometimes, I think you are
better off living with the risks than using long term meds to try to
eliminate them. I also think that a lot of the 'life-threatening'
conditions that they insist on trying to treat you for, are just fads.

Arfa

+1

A lot of medicine is driven by the desire of drug companies to get all of
us on drugs for life. With that in mind, we all have a duty to be as
critical as possible about the whole life benefits and risks of such
treatment.

I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good clinical
indication.

Tim

[Terry Fields]

On Sun, 09 Jun 2013 02:06:01 +0100, Arfa Daily wrote:


I don't tolerate medication well in the first place. I went through a
lot of different types of blood pressure medication before we finally
found one that didn't have significant side effects - to the point where
I was almost saying "enough already !"

AOL to that. I'm now on a small clutch of meds for high BP, that I can actually tolerate - and they might even be
helping my BP!

I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got side
effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit, they've
added all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him taking for
perceived conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck compared to the fit
and vital person he was before they got started. He has now completely
lost his sense of taste, and shakes all the time.

Is he on amlodipine? I was given that about five years ago, in the search for BP meds that would work. After
three months I had a distressing range of symptoms, from tingling arms and legs, a sore patch on the gum line,
and loss of taste and smell. When I complained I was taken off it, and some of the symptoms disappeared right
away (taste and smell), some took months to lessen, and I've still got the sore patch (although successive
dentists can find nothing wrong).

The other thing I'd say, about statins, is that I found a lunch-time sandwich made using Flora margarine brought
by cholesterol down from 7.4 to 5.2 units, low enough for me to argue that I didn't need statins - so this could be
an easy route to try first.

--
Terry Fields

[polygonum]

On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.

--
Rod

[[email protected]]

On Sunday, June 9, 2013 8:53:42 AM UTC+1, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:

I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,

nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good clinical

indication.



Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a

big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a

single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.



We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that

repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or

longer monitor.



--

Rod


Statins (allegedly) help in the prevention of heart attacks. I don't think they do b....r all for you once you've had one. The great cholesterol myth is just that and there seems as much valid, research results out to prove the argument either way, too much of the stuff kills you/it occurs naturally, does no harm and we need it.
I was one of the 1 in a 1000 and statins caused so much damage the neurologist thought I had rapid onset MS. We actually argued about the statins. I stopped taking them. One month later, no muscle pain, brain fog cleared, short term memory improved, stutter vanished, and I was able to walk without a stick....etc. The neurologist was impressed but wouldn't accept it was anything to do with the medication - "fairy dust then" I told him.
I'm now on a non statin based medication, available from your GP, but you have to ask/demand/insist on it. I've heard of or know several folk who have had various issues clear up once they dropped the statins.

[polygonum]

On 09/06/2013 10:14, wrote:
no muscle pain, brain fog cleared, short term memory improved, stutter vanished

You could be on a thyroid forum with that list! Have you ever been
tested for thyroid hormones & TSH? (Not that the tests are that good for
lots of reasons.)

--
Rod

[Stuart Noble]

On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no
side effects

[Tim+]

stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim

[The Natural Philosopher[_2_]]

On 09/06/13 02:06, Arfa Daily wrote:

snip


OTOH isn't it generally accepted that some statins (such as Symvastatin)
do have adverse side effects for a number of users (myself included
before
I stopped using them)?

In which case this is just confirming what the brochure with the pills
tells you.

The brochure for Pravastatin says that more than one in 1,000 people may
suffer from side effects including muscle and joint pain, with more
serious side effects for more than 1 in 10,000 people.

So is the research highlighting something more significant than that
published by the drug manufacturer?

Cheers

Dave R

Every year when I have my review for my (alleged) high blood pressure,
the doctor recommends to the practice nurse that handles the review,
that I start on statins for what she considers to be cholesterol
problems, and what I consider to be a slightly (against the average)
elevated level. And every year I refuse them. It's reached the point
now where the nurse says "Doctor xxx has recommended that you start on
statins, but you're not going to do that, are you ...?"

I don't tolerate medication well in the first place. I went through a
lot of different types of blood pressure medication before we finally
found one that didn't have significant side effects - to the point
where I was almost saying "enough already !"

I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got
side effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit,
they've added all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him
taking for perceived conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck
compared to the fit and vital person he was before they got started.
He has now completely lost his sense of taste, and shakes all the
time. Sometimes, I think you are better off living with the risks than
using long term meds to try to eliminate them. I also think that a lot
of the 'life-threatening' conditions that they insist on trying to
treat you for, are just fads.

Arfa
+1

I am down to one ACE inhibitor, and sod the rest. I feel a lot better
than when I was on a cocktail of hypertensions and statins.

In the end I was actually feeling suicidal. :Life was simply too much
like hard work. That's when I stopped. Now life is great again.

Ther is a difference between 20 years of hell and 10-15 years of
possibly having heart problems. But feeling alive.


--
Ineptocracy

(in-ep-toc-ra-cy) €“ a system of government where the least capable to lead are elected by the least capable of producing, and where the members of society least likely to sustain themselves or succeed, are rewarded with goods and services paid for by the confiscated wealth of a diminishing number of producers.

[polygonum]

On 09/06/2013 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ther is a difference between 20 years of hell and 10-15 years of
possibly having heart problems. But feeling alive.

You seem to be allowed to choose not to be treated for cancer, to refuse
an operation or a blood transfusion, but refusal of questionable
medicines with many known side-effects is turned back on you as being
un-co-operative.

I completely agree with you that it should be, and is, your choice. The
medics might have a duty to offer things, to explain side-effects and
risks, etc. - but it is patient's choice.

--
Rod

[Stuart Noble]

On 09/06/2013 12:53, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim


Thanks for that :-)

[Tim+]

stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:53, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim


Thanks for that :-)

You're welcome. ;-)

The fact of the matter is that if these drugs really do make you live
longer, you can look forward to dying of cancer or dementia instead.

Tim

[polygonum]

On 09/06/2013 15:04, Tim+ wrote:
The fact of the matter is that if these drugs really do make you live
longer, you can look forward to dying of cancer or dementia instead.

I think I remember reading something like an average of 14 days. Which
didn't seem a lot when the adverse effects are taken into account.
(There again, I might already have dementia and be mis-remembering what
I read...)

--
Rod

[Stuart Noble]

On 09/06/2013 15:04, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:53, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim


Thanks for that :-)

You're welcome. ;-)

The fact of the matter is that if these drugs really do make you live
longer, you can look forward to dying of cancer or dementia instead.

Tim

Don't overlook dying of boredom, which I consider the most likely

[Tim+]

stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 15:04, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 12:53, Tim+ wrote:
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim


Thanks for that :-)

You're welcome. ;-)

The fact of the matter is that if these drugs really do make you live
longer, you can look forward to dying of cancer or dementia instead.

Tim

Don't overlook dying of boredom, which I consider the most likely

Yep. My wife has a100 yr old aunt doing that. Very sad.

Tim

[tony sayer]

I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got side
effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit, they've added
all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him taking for perceived
conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck compared to the fit and vital
person he was before they got started. He has now completely lost his sense
of taste, and shakes all the time. Sometimes, I think you are better off
living with the risks than using long term meds to try to eliminate them. I
also think that a lot of the 'life-threatening' conditions that they insist
on trying to treat you for, are just fads.

Hypertension is no Fad at all Arfa, its a very prevalent and real
problem. I have and I know quite a few who are thus afflicted, and yes
you are right that some tolerate some drugs better then others. And
sometimes more than the one drug is a very good idea to come at it from
more then the one treatment angle.

What is also a known is not all doctors are the same and I had a total
incompetent who didn't pick up the hypertension at all for severe
recurrent headaches instead got me addicted to Ergotamine and some
others that didn't do any good at all.

At SWMBO's insistence I did consult another GP and she picked up this
straightaway treated the HT and lo and behold the almost daily headaches
I did suffer from disappeared and a vast reduction hypertension
figures

Also not all hospital dept's are the same, some are better than
others....



Arfa


--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article , stuart noble
scribeth thus
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher.

Thats par for the course or condition;!..

Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet.

Well its best checked over the whole day and averaged out but the idea
is not to just keep the doctor quiet its to keep you well

Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no
side effects

Its good that combined with something like Candesartan..
--
Tony Sayer

[tony sayer]

In article 921082343392468814.675328timdownie2003-nospampleaseyahoo.co.
, Tim+
..uk scribeth thus
stuart noble wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:53, polygonum wrote:
On 09/06/2013 08:44, Tim+ wrote:
I feel well, consequently I do not participate in any "well man" clinics,
nor do I allow anyone to even measure my BP without a dammed good
clinical
indication.

Am happy enough for them to satisfy themselves by measuring it. (Not a
big enough issue to argue about.) But absolutely never would I allow a
single reading in a surgery setting to dictate any treatment of me.

We have our own BP machine and I would at the very least use that
repeatedly over hours, days, weeks. And might well ask for a 24-hour or
longer monitor.


I did that intensive self-monitoring for a few months (well, I love
spreadsheets) and what became clear was that the evening readings were
higher. Now I always have BP checked at the doc's first thing in the
morning, which keeps them quiet. Currently on 5mg amlodipine with no side
effects

"No noticeable side effects YET" I think you mean. ;-)

Tim

FWIW I've been on that some 15 years now and very well tolerated. But I
know that its not the case for everyone some are better at that than
others. Overall its a well tolerated drug but sometimes it can take
quite a bit of trial and error to get it right.

A friend of mine she had HP, well fit she was too a dance teacher by
profession and one day had severe chest pain's and had had a small heart
attack, her BP was very high and treated it was fine but it drove her to
disappear to find the right treatment combination....


--
Tony Sayer

[Reentrant[_5_]]

I'm just back from a week's holiday, having forgotten to pack my
statins, and the only difference I've noticed is that the weather is
better when I don't take them.

--
Reentrant

[Arfa Daily]

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 09/06/2013 13:03, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

Ther is a difference between 20 years of hell and 10-15 years of
possibly having heart problems. But feeling alive.

You seem to be allowed to choose not to be treated for cancer, to refuse
an operation or a blood transfusion, but refusal of questionable medicines
with many known side-effects is turned back on you as being
un-co-operative.

I completely agree with you that it should be, and is, your choice. The
medics might have a duty to offer things, to explain side-effects and
risks, etc. - but it is patient's choice.

--
Rod


It's a difficult line to draw. Whilst I have a degree of respect for health
professionals' skills and qualifications, I am also not 'scared' of them,
and am prepared to say that I'm not happy, if I'm not. After all, it is my
body, and I expect to have a degree of say in how it is treated. The thing
is that these days, there is a wealth of knowledge to be had on the 'net
about every possible health complaint and its potential treatments, and
provided that you have a reasonable level of education, and a basic
understanding of your body's function, I see no reason why you shouldn't
feel justified in challenging some aspects of proposed treatments. There are
many factors that drive a clinician's choice of treatment, not the least of
which can be cost.

The first one to have a go at me about my blood pressure, was the senior
practice nurse. She started me off on whatever is the cheapest and most
common treatment. It didn't do a lot to alter my blood pressure, but what it
did do in spades, was make me tired, and give me an odd feeling of being
'detached' from my body. I told her this, and she insisted that tiredness
was not a known side effect of this particular drug. Having carefully read
the blurb sheet that came with it, and having read up on the 'net about it,
I knew otherwise, so I said "well... I think you'll find that it is ..."

She grabbed up her drugs 'bible', and spent a couple of minutes studying it,
then slammed it shut and banged it down on her desk, and proceeded to
prescribe something different. From that point on, we had a slightly uneasy
'standoff', but at least she listened. I didn't like her, and it was clear
that she didn't like me, and these days, she basically won't see me. We went
through a lot of different drugs before finally arriving at Candesarten,
which seemed to work in a mild dose, and gave me no noticeable side effects.
However, from what I understand, it is a Japanese drug, manufactured under
license by one company in France, and hence expensive, which I honestly
believe was a major factor in it taking so long to arrive at it.

A while back, the local HA wrote to me and said that because of the expense
of that drug, everyone on it was going to be moved to a substitute called
Losarten Potassium. I was prepared for a fight if necessary, but changed to
it with an open mind, and as it happened, it seemed slightly more
efficacious and again has had no noticeable side effects.

The nurse that I see now, and have done for several years, gets on ok with
me, and always listens to any concerns that I have. I think that she has
accepted that I have a fairly deep interest in and understanding of my body
and any conditions that it suffers from, and is prepared to deal with me on
that basis. She makes her recommendations, often based on what the doctor
has said, but never tries to force anything on me. That's the way I like it,
and that's the way I think it *should* be.

Sadly, for my mate, that's not the way it works in the relationship between
him and his practice nurse, and despite him making noises about side
effects, they have refused to change his medication. He is now in such a
state that recently, they were concerned that he might be beginning to
suffer from Parkinson's. He had all the tests done, but they declared him
clear of any identifiable neurological conditions. So they've decided that
it's a condition called essential tremor, and are now medicating him for
this as well. And in my opinion, he continues to get worse. He is now almost
unrecognisable from the person that I have known for the better part of 40
years, and whilst it may be just a case of 'getting old', all of this only
started when they began treating him for his blood pressure ...

Arfa

[Arfa Daily]

"tony sayer" wrote in message
...
I have a friend who was started on blood pressure meds, and he got side
effects, but didn't shout about it loud enough. Bit by bit, they've added
all sorts of odds and sods to what they've got him taking for perceived
conditions, and he is now a bloody wreck compared to the fit and vital
person he was before they got started. He has now completely lost his
sense
of taste, and shakes all the time. Sometimes, I think you are better off
living with the risks than using long term meds to try to eliminate them.
I
also think that a lot of the 'life-threatening' conditions that they
insist
on trying to treat you for, are just fads.

Hypertension is no Fad at all Arfa, its a very prevalent and real
problem. I have and I know quite a few who are thus afflicted, and yes
you are right that some tolerate some drugs better then others. And
sometimes more than the one drug is a very good idea to come at it from
more then the one treatment angle.

What is also a known is not all doctors are the same and I had a total
incompetent who didn't pick up the hypertension at all for severe
recurrent headaches instead got me addicted to Ergotamine and some
others that didn't do any good at all.

At SWMBO's insistence I did consult another GP and she picked up this
straightaway treated the HT and lo and behold the almost daily headaches
I did suffer from disappeared and a vast reduction hypertension
figures

Also not all hospital dept's are the same, some are better than
others....


Tony Sayer



I don't have any truck with the condition of hypertension existing, Tony.
Where I do have a bit of a problem is with the degree of health risk that
seems to have been attached to it in recent years, and the lack of concensus
on what constitutes 'high' blood pressure.

Last Christmas, I had an episode of cellulitis in my leg, which necessitated
seven weeks of treatment with oral antibiotics, and weekly visits to the
surgery to check progress. Inevitably, one of the visits corresponded to a
day off of my usual doctor, so I got to see a young and very 'modern' Indian
doctor who was standing in. He impressed me, I have to say, and one of the
things he did was to take my blood pressure, using a proper manual sphigmo'
rather than an auto. My usual doctor had not actually checked my blood
pressure on any of the four or five previous visits to date for my leg,
despite it being a declared a long-term issue on my record. He was perfectly
satisfied with the reading he got, and said that it would actually be even
slightly lower, when my body wasn't still fighting the leg infection.

The next week, I saw my usual doctor again, and this time, she actually did
take my pressure, again using the manual sphigmo'. The reading was about 2
points different on the systolic, and about the same on the diastolic as it
had been the previous week when the other doctor had said it was fine.
However, this doctor immediately started going on about it being too high.
She asked me when my next prescription was due. I told her two weeks, so she
said that from the next day, she wanted me to start taking two pills a day,
and that she would do me a new prescription there and then for pills of
double the concentration.

I was horrified at this and asked for the justification in DOUBLING the
dose. Other than her opinion that my blood pressure was "too high", she had
none. I respectfully declined, and told her that I would not even consider
messing with my blood pressure medication, whilst she was still working on
clearing up another condition with vicious doses of antibiotics. I put it to
her that as someone who also makes a living by diagnosis, I had a cardinal
rule that only one thing should be changed at a time in order to understand
the effects of that change. I told her that this rule had served me well for
over forty years in my career, and that I was going to apply it here as
well.

She grudgingly accepted the logic of my argument, and said that if I felt
that I didn't want to go into it further at this point, then I could leave
it alone.

So I did ...

Arfa

[polygonum]

On 10/06/2013 02:15, Arfa Daily wrote:
Sadly, for my mate, that's not the way it works in the relationship
between him and his practice nurse, and despite him making noises about
side effects, they have refused to change his medication. He is now in
such a state that recently, they were concerned that he might be
beginning to suffer from Parkinson's. He had all the tests done, but
they declared him clear of any identifiable neurological conditions. So
they've decided that it's a condition called essential tremor, and are
now medicating him for this as well. And in my opinion, he continues to
get worse. He is now almost unrecognisable from the person that I have
known for the better part of 40 years, and whilst it may be just a case
of 'getting old', all of this only started when they began treating him
for his blood pressure ...

In my area of interest, many patients are told that there is only one
medicine. Repeatedly. And despite the patient knowing full well it is an
option. You can easily look at any copy of BNF and see Liothyronine
alongside Levothyroxine as possible hypothyroidism treatments. Sometimes
doctors still deny it exists.

Not as if it were a new medicine - synthesised in, IIRC 1953, and
available fairly shortly after.

Once the doctor has been forced to accept its existence, they refuse on
grounds of not knowing anything about it, cost (which is ridiculously
high in the UK), etc.

There have been situations in which GPs have refused to continue
prescribing Liothyronine even when consultants have decided it is
necessary. At least one such ended up with the consultant ringing up the
GP and threatening him with GMC report for failing to look after patient.

Ten years ago (approx.) my partner suffered a collapse into severe
hypothyroidism. At the time much was made of her age and the need to
accept the effects of aging. Now, treating herself and virtually never
seeing a doctor, she is in many ways healthier than she was then.

--
Rod

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message ,
Reentrant writes
I'm just back from a week's holiday, having forgotten to pack my
statins, and the only difference I've noticed is that the weather is
better when I don't take them.

When asked, my doctor said it takes two weeks for the body to
*normalise* after stopping statins.

After reading TNP's view of the drugs I decided to carry out my own self
assessment trial.

After 2 weeks I felt less vague aches/non specific back pain, slept
better and found more enthusiasm to get stuff done:-) This coincided
with some better weather and getting some major jobs done so hard to be
certain.

Now, nearly at the end of the two weeks back on statins, I dream
more/vividly, tend to wake over hot after only 5 hours sleep but haven't
yet noticed any unearned aches and pains.

My plan is to halve the dose and get my levels checked after another
couple of weeks. I will also ask about possible links with thyroid
issues but expect to get fobbed off.




--
Tim Lamb

[polygonum]

On 10/06/2013 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:
I will also ask about possible links with thyroid issues but expect to
get fobbed off.

As near certain as anything in medicine. "What link? There is no link."
"The one in the patient information leaflet." "Yes, well, they include
everything that has ever been reported there. Couldn't possibly happen
to you."

--
Rod

[Tim Lamb[_2_]]

In message , polygonum
writes
On 10/06/2013 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:
I will also ask about possible links with thyroid issues but expect to
get fobbed off.

As near certain as anything in medicine. "What link? There is no link."
"The one in the patient information leaflet." "Yes, well, they include
everything that has ever been reported there. Couldn't possibly happen
to you."

:-)

Googleitis. The medical profession have an unbridled hatred for the
information revolution!

Somewhere I spotted that an under active thyroid can lead the liver to
overproduce cholesterol....


--
Tim Lamb

[polygonum]

On 10/06/2013 10:16, Tim Lamb wrote:
In message , polygonum
writes
On 10/06/2013 08:51, Tim Lamb wrote:
I will also ask about possible links with thyroid issues but expect to
get fobbed off.

As near certain as anything in medicine. "What link? There is no
link." "The one in the patient information leaflet." "Yes, well, they
include everything that has ever been reported there. Couldn't
possibly happen to you."

:-)

Googleitis. The medical profession have an unbridled hatred for the
information revolution!

Somewhere I spotted that an under active thyroid can lead the liver to
overproduce cholesterol....


Back in the earlier part of the twentieth century (i.e. before current
blood tests had been developed), high cholesterol was taken as a strong
indicator of inadequate thyroid hormone levels.

Ironically, they now rely very largely on the Thyroid Stimulating
Hormone test which is roundly condemned by many, including the person
who developed the TSH test! It is far too prone to produce false
negatives for lots of reasons and, as soon as any supplementation is
occurring (e.g. on levothyroxine), its value is seriously questionable.
Even the reference ranges are unacceptably wide. And then doctors look
at a test result of, say, 5.0 (maybe range 0.5 to 4.5), and say they
will not treat until TSH rises to 10. They want their cake and to eat
it. You simply cannot have ranges which you hold as absolute and then
ignore them!

--
Rod

[polygonum]

On 10/06/2013 11:54, Huge wrote:
My GP is perfectly happy if I turn up with a good idea what's wrong with
me. I suspect things may be different when people turn up with disrupted
chakras or discoloured auras.

I have seen several people posting that they have been expressly told by
their doctor(s) NOT to search anywhere. Makes you wonder who the NHS
websites are aimed at?

Mind, at least one person retorted that it would be impossible not to
look. With which I agree.

--
Rod

[Arfa Daily]

"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 10/06/2013 11:54, Huge wrote:
My GP is perfectly happy if I turn up with a good idea what's wrong with
me. I suspect things may be different when people turn up with disrupted
chakras or discoloured auras.

I have seen several people posting that they have been expressly told by
their doctor(s) NOT to search anywhere. Makes you wonder who the NHS
websites are aimed at?

Mind, at least one person retorted that it would be impossible not to
look. With which I agree.

--
Rod


I find that a lot of the best descriptions of conditions, and information on
the methods and drugs used to treat them, originate in the American
healthcare system. They seem to have a more 'open' view of the doctor -
patient relationship than we do. Possibly because it is fundamentally a
private system ?

Arfa

[polygonum]

On 10/06/2013 13:06, Arfa Daily wrote:


"polygonum" wrote in message
...
On 10/06/2013 11:54, Huge wrote:
My GP is perfectly happy if I turn up with a good idea what's wrong with
me. I suspect things may be different when people turn up with disrupted
chakras or discoloured auras.

I have seen several people posting that they have been expressly told
by their doctor(s) NOT to search anywhere. Makes you wonder who the
NHS websites are aimed at?

Mind, at least one person retorted that it would be impossible not to
look. With which I agree.

--
Rod


I find that a lot of the best descriptions of conditions, and
information on the methods and drugs used to treat them, originate in
the American healthcare system. They seem to have a more 'open' view of
the doctor - patient relationship than we do. Possibly because it is
fundamentally a private system ?

Arfa

I am a regular visitor to the National Institutes of Health! And other
USA and other country sites. Get a bit sick of the "Am I not the most
wonderful doctor in the world?" sites (espeically the ones who have so
obviously bought into a "program" and end up with nearly word-for-word
identical text) - but not difficult to ignore once you are familiar. :-)

Perhaps surprisingly, I have also found some interesting and useful
information by using Google translated searches - e.g Russian, German,
Chinese, etc.

--
Rod

[Mike Barnes[_2_]]

polygonum :
On 10/06/2013 11:54, Huge wrote:
My GP is perfectly happy if I turn up with a good idea what's wrong with
me. I suspect things may be different when people turn up with disrupted
chakras or discoloured auras.

I have seen several people posting that they have been expressly told
by their doctor(s) NOT to search anywhere. Makes you wonder who the NHS
websites are aimed at?

Obviously doctors vary and what you describe is certainly not NHS
policy. SWMBO is a GP and one of her favourite consultation moves is to
ask the patient what they think the problem is. And she Googles stuff in
the surgery with the patient watching.

--
Mike Barnes