- Messages
- 2,237
- Type of diabetes
- Treatment type
- Tablets (oral)
Yes. I'm supposed to have FH, but my attempt at testing this for myself has been screwed up by the DN interfering. Going to doctor Friday to try to get six monthly tests reinstated.Statins should have been yellow carded out of existance imo. With only one exception (and more research is needed into it) being FH.
Yes. I'm supposed to have FH, but my attempt at testing this for myself has been screwed up by the DN interfering. Going to doctor Friday to try to get six monthly tests reinstated.
I've been round them all now and found the best one at least.I've heard boffins arguing over this issue, there's so little data on FH that for those identified with the condition it must be extremely difficult if not impossible to make an informed choice on statin use. I think that you are right to at least ask for regular monitoring.
I fully intend to say to my HCPs whenever I see them in future that I am a person, a patient not a tick box excercise. Good luck at your appointment, fingers crossed that your GP will understand your concerns.
From the off ..I've tolerated Statins without any side effect ..and my blood fats, etc ..remain in the ✻green✻ zone.
The morning I was ℞'d my initial medication ..I started feeling phantom aches ..even though the package nestled unopened in my fisherman's smock pocket ..this might look like I'm making this up ..but I'm not.
I elect to go along with the medical advice ..which is my privilege.
Statins should have been yellow carded out of existance imo. With only one exception (and more research is needed into it) being FH.
I’d dearly love to hear him explain exactly how the statin achieves that.I've been told by my vascular surgeon that a Statin stabilizes the blockage in my aorta. Chunks breaking off is not good. It's peripheral Arterial Disease and much more common that people think - maybe up to 90% of people undiagnosed according to some.
I know that people are vehemently opposed to Statins but some sweeping statements perhaps need to be tempered.
I elect to go along with the medical advice ..which is my privilege.
I’d dearly love to hear him explain exactly how the statin achieves that.
Possibly or possibly not.. however there can’t be any “facts” if even the mechanism as to how the drugs are supposed to work isn’t understood. How can a non event be used as proof for anything?Possibly in a similar way that statins help prevent people who've had one coronary event having a second. The reasons are unknown yet the facts documented. I read Michel Kendricks blogs (and book) and even he, a vehement anti-statin warrior, acknowledges the above in the odd isolated sentence.
Statin for cholesterol - no.
Statin in my case (or someone who's had a coronary) - yes. Until I'm told different by someone who knows.
I elect to go along with the medical advice ..which is my privilege.
Apparently the guy from Oxford (a professor) believes that side effects are minimal however he has a patent for a medical test which proports to identify people who may respond badly to statins. He does not personally profit from this but the revenues do go to Oxford University according to Aseem Malhotra (cardiogogist who was the source of the Daily Mail article). My father takes statins and I have sent him ubiquinol/co Q10 but not sure if that is enough since he is of the opinion that he should do as he is told by his GP.Nobody would ever disagree with that.
The situation isn't helped by "inaccurate" information. The major problem I had was muscle pain, something that hasn't completely gone after I stopped taking statins 4 years ago. Merck Pharmaceutical knew there was a problem with statins preventing the uptake of CoQ10 back in 1990, so I didn't appreciate my GP telling me that my muscle pain was down to my age, the next time I mentioned it, he said it was my weight, then finally it was because I exercise too much, so basically he didn't have a clue, but was sure it was not statins, despite the fact that Merck knew exactly what the problem was.
More confusion caused by people like the chap at the Clinical Trial Service Unit at Oxford University saying on TV (Trust me, I'm a doctor) that it only affects 1 in 100,000, only to be followed by Dr David Baily, a GP, reporting that 1 in 10 of his patients reported problems. That figure doesn't take into account that many patients, like my father (91) and my MIL (91) just don't take the things despite them being prescribed. In their cause I'm tempted to say "They got to their 80s without statins, do they really need them at 91?"
There seems to be different medical advice depending on who one talks to. I made my decision on my own experience, I was in pain and just wanted to live out my days without pain, even if my life was shortened, a figure that is also disputed, depending on who one talks to.
I'm pretty sure your fathers GP if he is any good would not object to your father taking ubiquinol so he would not be disregarding his doctors advice if he did so.My father takes statins and I have sent him ubiquinol/co Q10
I've been told by my vascular surgeon that a Statin stabilizes the blockage in my aorta. Chunks breaking off is not good. It's peripheral Arterial Disease and much more common that people think - maybe up to 90% of people undiagnosed according to some.
I know that people are vehemently opposed to Statins but some sweeping statements perhaps need to be tempered.
Possibly in a similar way that statins help prevent people who've had one coronary event having a second. The reasons are unknown yet the facts documented. I read Michel Kendricks blogs (and book) and even he, a vehement anti-statin warrior, acknowledges the above in the odd isolated sentence.
Statin for cholesterol - no.
Statin in my case (or someone who's had a coronary) - yes. Until I'm told different by someone who knows.