Statins - good or bad - what does the research say?

[zand]

I have never taken statins and never will, so I haven't commented on this thread so far. The memory in my mind is the one when the medical profession decided that something which nature uses to protect us was a bad thing and then decided to create a drug to stop that natural protection happening. The results were disastrous. The drug was thalidomide and was designed to stop morning sickness. Morning sickness is just the body's way of getting rid of toxins, it was ridiculous to try to stop it happening.

Cholesterol is another thing that the body uses to protect itself. So here we go again, let's create statins. Why? Maybe higher cholesterol simply means that person actually needs more of it? Statins have been proven to be no use at all in women. Also the 'all causes lowest mortality rate' occurs with a total cholesterol level of 5.4 -.5.6, so why on earth would anyone want their cholesterol to be lower than this optimum level?

 

[Oldvatr]

I have big arguments with my GP over this subject. I did a lot of researching scientific reports on the processes that occcur during metbolism, and one thing stood out. Our bodies manufacture cholesterol directly from the fat intake, BUT (big But) it is not dependant on the quantity we ingest, nor whether the food iteslf has cholesterol. Our bodies are very clever, and make cholesterol from just about anything (even glicose alone if necessary), We need cholesterol to function properly, and the Citric Cycle shows that under ketogenic diet conditions (or starvation) then when our bgl is low, then our cells burn fat instead of glucogen.
Cholesterol is the transport mechanism for fat to the muscles (i.e. the oil tankers of life)

By taking statins, we are upsetting the balance of cholesterol in our blood stream and when bgl is low we do not have the energy reserve from the cholesterol path, and hence get pain in the muscles as if we have done heavy exercise and used up our reserves. The reason why diabetics get the statin treatment is one side effect of the condition may be that insulin resistance stops glucogen being properly utilised, and so our bodies deliberately manufacture an excess of cholesterol simply to provide energy that we CAN use instead. So high choleterol appears to be a bi-product of the insulin resistance, and it goes with the territory so to speak. Trying to reduce cholesterol may actually be doing us more harm than good. The latest research seems to show that high cholesterol does not actually affect mortality as was previously thought.

 

[Oldvatr]

There are conflicting pieces of research but that is often to do with the type of research - small study versus a very large prospective study or, indeed, research that looks at the combination of many research studies.

The problem is that there i precious little funding for independant research. Virtually all research for diabetes is funded by Big Pharma, and is never independant. I remember reading the actual lab results from the roziglitizone trials done for licence application. It showed that there were some fatalities during the trials, but when the licence was applied for, this info had been written out. Also the target patients had been carefully selected to provide 'justification' for omitting any deaths from the report.

 

[DavidGrahamJones]

I most certainly say that rigorous research is better than straw polls. I would not do research, be a research subject or spend time advising on diabetes and other research if I thought otherwise.
Doug

No doubt you're right, I wouldn't disagree, generally. A poll is after all a record of opinion. Although it's a bit more really. The BMJ did a "straw poll" of 500 GPs and asked if they would prescribe statins for themselves or to a family member. 60% said No, although my GP said she could think of one of her relatives she would prescribe it to. I got the impression that maybe she didn't like the relative.

I am very concerned of the long term effects of taking statins, I took them for 17 years and was in pain for most of it, having to tolerate my previous GP coming out with a different excuse every year for the pain I was in. Wish I'd known about the 1990 patent application in the early days. My concern about long term effects is that as far as I know, there is no or little research.

My concern isn't helped by the number of lawsuits against Pfizer for not providing adequate warning about the risk of developing diabetes. There are also lawsuits against other pharmaceutical companies because of a connection with cardiomyopathy and rhabdomyolysis. All a bit of a mess really. Not surprising because no research can ever be thorough enough, can go on for long enough (got to get it to market after all, return on investment).

 

[Osidge]

@Oldvatr It is untrue that virtually all research for diabetes is funded by big pharma. What made you think that it was?

Doug

 

[Jaylee]

@Osidge , do you take statins.?

 

[Osidge]

@DavidGrahamJones There is no doubt that statins have side effects from day one for some folks and other people have no problems with taking them. The problem with polls is that it is often the people who have been unfortunate to have had side effects or those who have googled and think that because there might be side effects then there will be side effects. The power of the mind is such that some people will experience side effects because they believe that they will have them. I have not come across a drug that has no side effects at all. I was a patient in the ASCOT trial that looked at statins and mortality outcomes. That arm of the study was closed earlier than the blood pressure arm as there was overwhelming evidence of decreased mortality.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175773

Doug

 

[Osidge]

@Osidge , do you take statins.?

I have been on a statin since 1998. I was part of the ASCOT trial: http://www.ascotstudy.org/en

Doug

 

[Jaylee]

I have been on a statin since 1998. I was part of the ASCOT trial: http://www.ascotstudy.org/en

Doug

Positive personal benefits from statin use with no side effects.. Can you elaborate?

 

[zand]

@DavidGrahamJones I was a patient in the ASCOT trial that looked at statins and mortality outcomes. That arm of the study was closed earlier than the blood pressure arm as there was overwhelming evidence of decreased mortality.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18175773

Doug

They got the result they were looking for and then closed the study early - in case the longer term results weren't as good maybe?

 

[dannyw]

@Osidge, clearly you are in favour of stations which is cool. That alone doesn't make them safe. Far more than any other drug on the market, statins divide opinion not only with those who take them but those that prescribe them too. There is no evidence available as yet that would convince me they are safe get they are the most widely prescribed drug in the world. It worries me....

 

[Brunneria]

@DavidGrahamJones The problem with polls is that it is often the people who have been unfortunate to have side effects or those who have googled and think that because there might be side effects then there will be side effects. The power of the mind is such that some people will experience side effects because they believe that they will have them.
Doug

Equally, some people do not know that the symptoms they experience are due to a drug they have been taking for months or years. Especially if the symptoms develop slowly over time.

With statins, the well documented contraindications include muscle aches, raised blood glucose and increased risk of diabetes.

Anyone who started statins prior to developing diabetes may have developed diabetes as a result of the statins. Or not. But it is illogical to claim that they couldn't have done, or that their condition may be psychosomatic.

 

[Osidge]

Positive personal benefits from statin use with no side effects.. Can you elaborate?

I had an immediate lowering of my cholesterol on beginning treatment and on a recent but different piece of clinical research, involving cardiac MRIs and artery ultrasounds, I was found to have no deposits in my heart and all my arteries had no thickening. Another important point - I am not dead and I have not had a stroke!

Doug

 

[Osidge]

They got the result they were looking for and then closed the study early - in case the longer term results weren't as good maybe?

No. It was not ethical to keep that arm of the study open once the health benefits had been established. One of the golden rules.

Doug

 

[Osidge]

Equally, some people do not know that the symptoms they experience are due to a drug they have been taking for months or years. Especially if the symptoms develop slowly over time.

With statins, the well documented contraindications include muscle aches, raised blood glucose and increased risk of diabetes.

Anyone who started statins prior to developing diabetes may have developed diabetes as a result of the statins. Or not. But it is illogical to claim that they couldn't have done, or that their condition may be psychosomatic.

Why is it illogical to claim that some people may have had the side effect equivalent to the placebo effect? I have never claimed that some people do not get side effects from statins. That is well documented on the patient information leaflets and existing research: http://www.nhs.uk/news/2010/05May/Pages/side-effects-of-statins-studied.aspx and http://www.webmd.com/diabetes/news/20150304/statins-linked-to-raised-risk-of-type-2-diabetes

Doug

 

[Osidge]

@Osidge, clearly you are in favour of stations which is cool. That alone doesn't make them safe. Far more than any other drug on the market, statins divide opinion not only with those who take them but those that prescribe them too. There is no evidence available as yet that would convince me they are safe get they are the most widely prescribed drug in the world. It worries me....

Everyone should make informed choices about taking any drug. Again, let me repeat, I have never said that statins do not have side effects for a small percentage of those with diabetes. If you do not want to take them because you might have side effects then that is your choice.

Doug

 

[Osidge]

I have tried most of the branded statins at some time over the last 10 years, all had the same result:- No reduction in lipid panel, but debilitaing arm and shoulder pain after the first week or so. I have had a background Ezetemibe dose for some time, but again it does not seem to help lower the HDL. Have now given up on all of them, and doing LCHF diet instead, will know next week if it has had any effect.

You would not usually want to lower your HDL. Have you been diagnosed with a particular form of high cholesterol such as familial hypercholesterolemia?

Doug

 

[Mike d]

Interesting in what way, @Mike D? I am not so sure of the scientific value of this sort of poll.

Doug

I didn't say it was interesting ..... personal experiences and perceptions can sometimes count, can they not?

 

[dannyw]

Everyone should make informed choices about taking any drug. Again, let me repeat, I have never said that statins do not have side effects for a small percentage of those with diabetes. If you do not want to take them because you might have side effects then that is your choice.

Doug

What do you call a "small percentage" and where do you get your numbers ? There are quite a few on this thread alone who would disagree. The internet is full of stories of people suffering muscle pains and worse. It seems to me it may be a little more than a small percentage but I have no evidence, I just read and listen to others which gives me an informed decision.

 

[Oldvatr]

@Oldvatr It is untrue that virtually all research for diabetes is funded by big pharma. What made you think that it was?

Doug

I would like to know who funded ASCOT. The link you posted only goes to an abstract page, and I have not been able to get hold of the main body text. The funding link it displays is not comprehensive, so I cannot deduce who provided funding. However, to provide monitoring on 10,000 individual cases for 3.3 years does not come cheap. As I understand it, there is a strong indication that it came from Pfizer, the manufacturer of Avorstatin. No one else has sufficient interest in proving that statins are safe for ALL to use. The only other player who might have stepped in is NICE, and they did not until recently have the powers to generate funds for research. In the latest NICE guidelines, they now have legal powers to 'encourage' manufacturers to perform safety tests at their own expense. So I still maintain that it is difficult to find funding for large scale trials by truly independant labs outside the major manufacturers., Simple logic says that noone else has the inclination or funds to do it. It is beyond the means of charity, and crowdsourcing is unlikely to raise the capital in order to prove a negative that results in taking a lucrative drug off the market.

As a final indication, I asked my GP if my request to drop my statin would be relayed back to anyone monitoring. He said No because it was not a life threatening event. He has no mandate to report this to anyone, so nothing happens.