Ditch The Statins

[dbr10]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5855771/Ditch-pills-beat-heart-disease.html

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5855771/Ditch-pills-beat-heart-disease.html

Generally, not a bad article, probably because it says the things I like to hear. One very small point.

"Public Health England recommend adults get 35 per cent of their energy intake from fat and 50 per cent from carbohydrates, such as bread, pasta and sugar."

It wouldn't let me upload this PDF: https://assets.publishing.service.g...ent_data/file/528193/Eatwell_guide_colour.pdf.

Basically, the recommendation is about 1/3. Still, it is the Daily Mail, what did I expect? LOL What's 15% between friends? LOL

I especially like stories like this because they like to print stories from both sides of this discussion and I suppose that's fair. I know which side I believe. I gave up statins after 17 years of being ignored by my GP (for the most part, present GP is a different kettle of fish, she actually listens), and having very bad muscle pain, cognitive issues and poor sleep. Lowering carbs resulted in a significant drop in total cholesterol (can''t remember exact numbers) which gave me the confidence to ditch them.

Unfortunately, muscle issues are still present but to a lesser degree, cognitive issues are still a problem and I'm told that I worry about those too much. Sleep much improved, I could sleep for 8 hours, just a shame about the frequent bathroom visits. The bathroom visits have been investigated and probably associated with fluid consumption. I have got it down to one visit a night and my regular visits to Portsmouth (from High Wycombe) no longer require visits to Terminal 5 at Heathrow to use the bathroom. £3.50 for parking is an expensive pee stop LOL.

 

[Guzzler]

Statins should have been yellow carded out of existance imo. With only one exception (and more research is needed into it) being FH.

 

[dbr10]

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.

 

[Guzzler]

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 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.

 

[dbr10]

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.

I've been round them all now and found the best one at least.

 

[JohnEGreen]

I have FH but in my case it's a fat head or so my wife tells me.

Oh and I have ditched the statins just unticked them from my repeat prescription.

 

[Ajax]

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.

 

[Guzzler]

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.

You are correct, it is your choice. It is my choice to avoid statins therefore I should be afforded the privilege of being able to refuse without being nagged, bullied or lied to.

Tell us more about this 'green zone' if you would, please.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

Statins should have been yellow carded out of existance imo. With only one exception (and more research is needed into it) being FH.

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.

 

[bulkbiker]

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’d dearly love to hear him explain exactly how the statin achieves that.

 

[JohnEGreen]

I elect to go along with the medical advice ..which is my privilege.

And it is my privilege to ignore bad advice no matter it's origin. That's why I ignored the medical advice to eat loads of carbohydrates every day and to test even though they told me I should not test and that my brain cannot function without carbs, which is a nonsense.

 

[JohnEGreen]

Further to this in a more general way.

"
That question has been central to Ioannidis’s career. He’s what’s known as a meta-researcher, and he’s become one of the world’s foremost experts on the credibility of medical research. He and his team have shown, again and again, and in many different ways, that much of what biomedical researchers conclude in published studies—conclusions that doctors keep in mind when they prescribe antibiotics or blood-pressure medication, or when they advise us to consume more fiber or less meat, or when they recommend surgery for heart disease or back pain—is misleading, exaggerated, and often flat-out wrong. He charges that as much as 90 percent of the published medical information that doctors rely on is flawed. His work has been widely accepted by the medical community; it has been published in the field’s top journals, where it is heavily cited; and he is a big draw at conferences. Given this exposure, and the fact that his work broadly targets everyone else’s work in medicine, as well as everything that physicians do and all the health advice we get, Ioannidis may be one of the most influential scientists alive. Yet for all his influence, he worries that the field of medical research is so pervasively flawed, and so riddled with conflicts of interest, that it might be chronically resistant to change—or even to publicly admitting that there’s a problem."

From an article I was reading on line here.

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2010/11/lies-damned-lies-and-medical-science/308269/

It's faily old but relavent I think.

 

[Jo_the_boat]

I’d dearly love to hear him explain exactly how the statin achieves that.

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.

 

[bulkbiker]

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.

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?

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I elect to go along with the medical advice ..which is my privilege.

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.

 

[NicoleC1971]

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.

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.

 

[JohnEGreen]

My father takes statins and I have sent him ubiquinol/co Q10

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.

 

[Guzzler]

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.

"Imo" was included in my comment.

 

[Guzzler]

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.

And meanwhile the plan is to medicate whole populations? I cannot see the logic in that at all.