listener

Yes, but different facts?

L.

bill

No. It is not a matter of interpretation. It is a matter of what you are
saying is absouletly not true. It is not there. You are a liar.

You lie about facts because you believe you cause justifies it. I challenge
you to present evidence to support your interpretation of "100%" Bill

listener

Challenge? Too late. All that matters is the spin.

What makes this all the more unfortunate is that, repeatedly,
both Sharon and zee have misinterpreted/misstated information
contained in their own links that supposedly support their
own views. They then criticize the person who points it out
to them. (Sharon will also bring up her husbands sad story
again, just to divert attention). Eventually, if you keep it
up, you'll be accused of harrassing them.

In the many times this has occurred in the last few years I
don't recall seeing either one admit to it. I doubt she'll
begin now.


L.

sharon hope

Bill,

The numbers are in the chart published in the full text of the study.

When you read that chart, how else do you interpret the differences between
the statin group and the control group for Attention, Psychomotor Speed,
Mental Flexibility, Working Memory, and Memory Recall?

How else do you interpret, specifically, the Attention, Psychomotor Speed,
and Mental Flexibility portions on the Figure at the top of page 539 of The
American Journal of Medicine, volume 108, May 2000? The figure caption:
Mean change in cognitive function between baseline and 6-month follow-up in
the two treatment groups. Results are expressed as the change in summary z
scores (and 95% confidence intervals) for each of the five domains of
neuropsychological performance. A positive deflection indicates performance
improvement and a negative deflection indicates performance decrement. See
text for results of statistical analyses.

Do you see any overlap in the 't' bars showing the range for Attention and
Psychomotor Speed between the two groups? Do you see any part of the shaded
mean indicator that is anything but negative for the statin group and
positive for the control group for Attention, Psychomotor Speed, and Mental
Flexibility? That center line that divides the shaded areas is 0.0, and
that measurement is "Change in Domain Performance." Note that the statin
group means are below the 0.0 line and the control groups are above the 0.0
line.

Failure to learn is a cognitive decline, because normal is ongoing learning.
In Attention and Psychomotor Speed, the mean shows not just failure to
learn, it shows regression. The statin mean is a loss of cognitive ability
in only 6 months of treatment. In all the 5 areas of measurement, the
statin group mean is below the normal group.

If you were an employer, you would expect a new employee to function better
on the job after working for 6 months than he did on the first day. The
mean from the control group taking the placebo shows this is a reasonable
assumption. The mean from the statin group, after only 6 months of
treatment, shows the employee would perform worse on the job for Attention
and Psychomotor Speed. In each of the areas, the mean from the control
group would perform better than the person from the mean of the statin
takers.

Which group would you as the employer retain?

bill

Yes ,but here is what you said:

"showed 100% of statin users had a measurable loss of cognitive ability
after 6 months"

This means 100% of the people who were statin users in the study showed a loss
of cognitive ability. No where in the text or the figures is that stated or
implied. What it showed was the statin group as a whole was below the other
group. Not that every individual in the statin group lost cognitive ability. Bill

sharon hope

Bill said

Failure to learn is a loss of normal cognitive ability.

Two of the categories show a negative change, with every individual in the
statin group scoring lower than any individual in the control group. That,
by definition, is a cognitive deficit.

BTW, the second Muldoon study, published last month, confirms the findings
for a second statin, and establishes the Neuropsychological Tests that
reliably measure statin impact on cognition.

Have you read the other studies citing statin cognitive damage yet?

bill

I see nothing in the text or figures to support that. Could you explain
precisely where it says

"every individual in the statin group scoring lower than any individual in
the control group"

and that is also different from

"showed 100% of statin users had a measurable loss of cognitive ability
after 6 months"

It says nothing like that either. Bill

sharon hope

Per your questions on "Effects of Lovastatin on Cognitive Function and
Psychological Well-being," Muldoon MF, Barger SD, Ryan CM, Flory JD,
Lehoczky JP, Matthews KA, Manuck SB.
Again, the chart says it. Look at the full study, specifically, the
Attention, Psychomotor Speed, and Mental Flexibility portions on the Figure
at the top of page 539 of The American Journal of Medicine, volume 108, May
2000.

A crude approximation of the chart in text:

The verticle axis on the left is "Change in domain performance." Since I
can't do shaded boxes for the mean, SM indicates Statin Mean, PM indicates
the Placebo Mean. The uprights indicate the range. Notice that the
uprights do not overlap at all for Attention and Psychomotor Speed, nor do
the mean boxes:


0.3
| | |
0.2 | | |
P|M P|M P|M
0.1 P|M P|M P|M
| P M | P M | P|M
0.0 -----|---------------|---------------|-------------------------------------------------------
S|M S|M S|M
-0.1 | | |

Attention Psychomotor Mental
Speed Flexibility

"The figure caption: Mean change in cognitive function between baseline and
6-month follow-up in the two treatment groups. Results are expressed as the
change in summary z scores (and 95% confidence intervals) for each of the
five domains of neuropsychological performance. A positive deflection
indicates performance improvement and a negative deflection indicates
performance decrement. See text for results of statistical analyses."

Note that for Attention and Psychomotor Speed, the PM means and the PM
uprights are above the 0.0 line, indicating improvement. Note that the SM
means are below the 0.0 line, indicating a deficit, and the SM uprights are
below the PMs, indicating a failure to learn at a normal pace.

The December 2004 study characterizes the 2000 study in these words:

"In 2000, we reported the results of our initial study of
central nervous system effects of statins (7). The investigation

employed a double-blind, randomized, placebocontrolled

design to evaluate the effects of lovastatin on

cognitive functioning and mood among 209 middle-aged

adults with hypercholesterolemia. Compared with

masked placebo, 20 mg of lovastatin taken daily for 6

months had detrimental effects on cognitive performance

on four neuropsychological tests assessing attention,

working memory, and overall mental efficiency."