This is the hardest part for me too. The constant battles every time I'm there. In the US they're required by 'some insurance guideline with Managed Care plans' to get all diabetics on statins. We're considered STAGE 2 prevention (as if we'd already had one heart attack regardless of our level of BG control currently). Most of the newer research shows we're NOT Stage 2 prevention.Dougie22 said:I find it very difficult to disagree with my (overbearing) GP on this, given the national guidelines she is working to and my extremely high reading but, so far, I've stuck to my guns.
That's probably the most scary aspect of all of this and the part the doctors never tell you.... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog CAN BE 'permanent', for some, if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. :shock:clearviews said:Oh dear Viv! Makes my Lipitor journey sound piddling by comparison. On dx a diabetic tends to get put on various meds. I decided I wanted off of as many meds as I could and failed to note the dissappearance of nasty side effects as I slowly eliminated the meds. Trouble was I didn't even know I was experiencing side effects as I simply put these happening things down to ........whatever.viviennem said:'Duane Graveline' and 'Stephanie Seneff' :wink:
Viv 8)
Seriously? Can you back that statement up with proof? I could see how some side-effects may be permanent in some people but surely what you say is hype? I'm not a fan of statins and I agree that they are grossly over-prescribed but please let's not resort to scaremongering to try to make a point.NewdestinyX said:... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. ...
I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.pianoman said:Seriously? Can you back that statement up with proof? I could see how some side-effects may be permanent in some people but surely what you say is hype? I'm not a fan of statins and I agree that they are grossly over-prescribed but please let's not resort to scaremongering to try to make a point.NewdestinyX said:... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. ...
I didn't ask you about "backing up" your statement with "proof" I asked about backing up with proof -- literally NOT figuratively. And if you only meant "some" people I'm not clear what you now intend to prove? I accept that what you suggest may be true for some people... what I was balking at was your strong assertion that it was true for everyone. :shock:NewdestinyX said:I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.
There is nothing in the prose of my statement that implies, even remotely, 'everyone'. You've simply misread. Since that's the case - then we agree: that for SOME people - the side effects can be permanent IF they don't come off the drug quickly after the symptoms appear. That's what I believe my paragraph said. I've read it again several times. It does not imply 'everyone' even in the slightest. If you'd like to take a crack at a reword, Pianoman - have at it. I'll be happy to edit my post.pianoman said:I didn't ask you about "backing up" your statement with "proof" I asked about backing up with proof -- literally NOT figuratively. And if you only meant "some" people I'm not clear what you now intend to prove? I accept that what you suggest may be true for some people... what I was balking at was your strong assertion that it was true for everyone. :shock:NewdestinyX said:I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.
. . . the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.
AH!! I see the 'imprecise nature' of my statement. Thanks Viv and Pianoman.. I have edited my post to read..viviennem said:In your original post about side-effects, Grant, you made the following statement:
. . . the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.
I agree with you that your post did not imply that everyone gets statin side effects; but the sentence above does imply that the myopathy and brain fog will be permanent in everyone who gets them if they don't stop the statins in the first 2 - 4 weeks.
This is not what happened to Duane Graveline and not what happened to me - though I didn't get the brain fog.
Viv 8)
the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog CAN BE 'permanent', for some, if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.
Ah. Okay. Dr Graveline is SpaceDoc..viviennem said:"Spacedoc" is Duane Graveline, whom I suggested people Google for in an earlier post. His experience was: - bad muscle and brain fog side effects when first taking statins; came off them and everything cleared up; went back on to another brand and back came the brain fog and the muscle weakness. His damage was not permanent. He's been researching them ever since.
There is a caveat, though - not everyone gets those, or indeed any, side effects.
Viv 8)
WebMD is usually a solid source on these issue and use peer-reviewed studies to back their conclusions.July 6, 2009 - Statin users with prolonged statin-related muscle pain may also experience muscle damage, even when a blood test used to identify muscle injury is normal, new research shows.
Studies suggest that between 10% and 15% of patients who take cholesterol-lowering statin drugs like Crestor, Lipitor, Lescol, Mevacor, Zocor, and Pravachol experience muscle pain as a side effect of treatment.
Most do not end up with muscle damage, and a simple blood test is routinely performed to identify patients who do.
But the new study suggests the test for elevated levels of an enzyme associated with muscle injury, known as creatine phosphokinase or CPK, may be less accurate than widely believed.
“The patients in our study were unusual in that they had experienced weeks to months of persistent muscle problems,” Richard H. Karas, MD, PhD, tells WebMD. “We found that these patients can have evidence of microscopic damage to their muscles even with a normal CPK.”
Dillinger said:Hi,
I'm not convinced by statin use, I used to take them but got muscle cramps and other difficulties (including occasional problems swallowing :shock: :evil: ) and so have stopped taking them.
They will lower your cholesterol levels, but your levels are lower than the national average anyway. Your GP will be rewarded for getting you to take statins so they do have an inducement to suggest you do. Statins will slightly reduce your risk of cardiovascular events, but not to the extent that getting excellent HbA1c's would (i.e. <6.5).
Statins are huge business and so, alas as always, you have to follow the money; side effects are routinely ignored or discounted by doctors because the literature doesn't focus on them, and the benefits are shamelessly massaged by drug companies. For instance did you know that if you are a woman and you take a statin your life expectancy will not increase by 1 day :!: . Women may be very slightly less likely to die from a heart attack, but they won't live any longer at all. It's like saying "Do you want to take a pill with a number of side effects (that we won't acknowledge) that will mean that you won't get hit by a red bus, but a blue bus?".
Here is a little article denouncing statin use http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/statin.pdf
If you are really interested google Dr. Malcolm Kendrick who wrote a very convincing book about why statins are just smoke and mirrors (The Great Cholesterol Con), there are many other anti-statin books too. I found this link by Kendrick which speaks for itself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE
This is another very interesting bit of research on heart attacks in Type 2's - note the statement on 'lipid lowering drugs' - "Forty-seven percent of those who had heart attacks and 47% of those who did not have heart attacks were on lipid lowering drugs, i.e. statins. These drugs apparently made no difference."
http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009 ... s-and.html
But you wouldn't hear about any of this from your GP as they pretty much all believe that statins are the magic bullets in the 'war on heart disease'.
Dillinger