Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Home
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Install the app
Install
Reply to Thread
Guest, we'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the
Diabetes Forum Survey 2024 »
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Diabetes Medication and Drugs
Non-Diabetic Medication
Statins - If you got straight trousers they'll give you flares
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="zand" data-source="post: 582629" data-attributes="member: 85197"><p>Ramipril - yes I understand that these 3 forum members who I like and respect take these drugs to protect themselves from Nephropathy. I have had to re-think my view on this because of the 3 of you, but as it stands at the moment, my own experience is still most valid to me. I was given blood pressure tablets because my bp got horrendously high because my weight had just tipped into the morbidly obese section of the weight chart. My kidney function was down already and I read on the leaflet inside the pack of drugs that kidneys could be harmed by Ramipril. Added to that I got a cough which affected my throat and made me lose my voice completely (I often got laryngitis) So I asked to change tablets. Now what I really needed was for someone to say LCHF to me because then the problem would have been solved, I would have lost the weight and my blood pressure would have fallen. I was surprised to find that this drug actually protects from Nephropathy. I accept it does because the 3 of you say it does. As I said earlier I was not diabetic at the time so didn't take note of anything relevant specifically to diabetics.</p><p></p><p>My mother's family also have a history of cancer, so this is a topic which concerns me. My grandmother had breast cancer, though she died of a stroke. An Auntie died of breast cancer, another of bowel cancer, another of cervical cancer. My mother died of multiple myeloma. Now with breast cancer we were told for years to have mammograms for early detection. Now there's evidence that mammograms often don't detect the worst cancers and even make them grow more quickly. They do detect the milder ones which may not even need removing, so survival rate figures are distorted. Yet it was medical 'fact' that mammograms were a good idea. As I said I am cynical and when I read this the thought I had was that many women are refusing statins and they need encouragement to take them. Would I take a drug that was specifically developed to protect from breast cancer? Probably. Would I take statins to protect myself from breast cancer? No, they are known to damage muscles and the heart is a muscle also. I haven't worked so hard to get my heart fit and well again only to take a drug that could harm it.</p><p></p><p>When my heart was in AF I chose to have shocks to put it back into rhythm. A man I know with the same problem chose to go down the drugs route. He was a keen rugby player. After 2 years we were both fine. Then my heart went back into AF again. His had never been out of it and was getting progressively worse. After more shocks and an operation, my heart is better. His is worse and he can't lift an arm because of muscle damage from the statins which were supposed to protect his heart. He can't do any physical work because he is too weak. So I too have seen first hand what statins can do. Yes they say a TC of 9+ is far too high. Are they right? Or are we all different? Do some simply have higher levels than others? I am not convinced that we should be messing around lowering cholesterol at all.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="zand, post: 582629, member: 85197"] Ramipril - yes I understand that these 3 forum members who I like and respect take these drugs to protect themselves from Nephropathy. I have had to re-think my view on this because of the 3 of you, but as it stands at the moment, my own experience is still most valid to me. I was given blood pressure tablets because my bp got horrendously high because my weight had just tipped into the morbidly obese section of the weight chart. My kidney function was down already and I read on the leaflet inside the pack of drugs that kidneys could be harmed by Ramipril. Added to that I got a cough which affected my throat and made me lose my voice completely (I often got laryngitis) So I asked to change tablets. Now what I really needed was for someone to say LCHF to me because then the problem would have been solved, I would have lost the weight and my blood pressure would have fallen. I was surprised to find that this drug actually protects from Nephropathy. I accept it does because the 3 of you say it does. As I said earlier I was not diabetic at the time so didn't take note of anything relevant specifically to diabetics. My mother's family also have a history of cancer, so this is a topic which concerns me. My grandmother had breast cancer, though she died of a stroke. An Auntie died of breast cancer, another of bowel cancer, another of cervical cancer. My mother died of multiple myeloma. Now with breast cancer we were told for years to have mammograms for early detection. Now there's evidence that mammograms often don't detect the worst cancers and even make them grow more quickly. They do detect the milder ones which may not even need removing, so survival rate figures are distorted. Yet it was medical 'fact' that mammograms were a good idea. As I said I am cynical and when I read this the thought I had was that many women are refusing statins and they need encouragement to take them. Would I take a drug that was specifically developed to protect from breast cancer? Probably. Would I take statins to protect myself from breast cancer? No, they are known to damage muscles and the heart is a muscle also. I haven't worked so hard to get my heart fit and well again only to take a drug that could harm it. When my heart was in AF I chose to have shocks to put it back into rhythm. A man I know with the same problem chose to go down the drugs route. He was a keen rugby player. After 2 years we were both fine. Then my heart went back into AF again. His had never been out of it and was getting progressively worse. After more shocks and an operation, my heart is better. His is worse and he can't lift an arm because of muscle damage from the statins which were supposed to protect his heart. He can't do any physical work because he is too weak. So I too have seen first hand what statins can do. Yes they say a TC of 9+ is far too high. Are they right? Or are we all different? Do some simply have higher levels than others? I am not convinced that we should be messing around lowering cholesterol at all. [/QUOTE]
Verification
Post Reply
Home
Forums
Diabetes Management
Diabetes Medication and Drugs
Non-Diabetic Medication
Statins - If you got straight trousers they'll give you flares
Top
Bottom
Find support, ask questions and share your experiences. Ad free.
Join the community »
This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn More.…