Dr Haroun Gajraj: Why I've Ditched Statins for Good

[borofergie]

Medical Doctor reverses his chronically high cholesterol with Low Carb High Fat diet and comes to the conclusion that "statins were not going to save me from a heart attack and that my cholesterol levels were all but irrelevant".

When I had a routine health check-up eight years ago, my cholesterol was so high that the laboratory thought there had been a mistake. I had 9.3 millimoles of cholesterol in every litre of blood — almost twice the recommended maximum.

For eight years, I faithfully popped my 20mg atorvastatin pills, without side effects. Then, one day last May, I stopped. It wasn’t a snap decision; after looking more closely at the research, I’d concluded that statins were not going to save me from a heart attack and that my cholesterol levels were all but irrelevant.

The only major changes I’d made to my lifestyle since coming off statins were eliminating sugar (including alcohol and starchy foods such as bread) and eating more animal fat. Many experts now believe that sugar is emerging as a true villain in the heart-disease story; while after decades of demonisation, saturated fat has been acquitted of causing heart disease by a recent “meta” analysis of 70 studies by Cambridge University.

Typically, I was eating red meat three or four times a week and enjoying butter, full-fat milk and plenty of eggs. You would have thought that after three months on a diet so high in saturated fat, my cholesterol would have shot back up to pre-statin levels — but no, it came down and has stayed down seven months on. Not only that, but my levels of LDL (so-called bad cholesterol) were also lower than when I’d been on statins, and my ratio of HDL (so-called good cholesterol) to LDL was under four for the first time, an excellent sign, according to medical wisdom.

When the results came back, he was amazed that my total blood cholesterol was lower than when I’d been on statins. After three months without the pills, it was 5.4mmol/l (5.4 millimoles per litre of blood) compared with 5.7 mmol/l a year earlier.

It is rather interesting to me that statins are being pushed harder than ever, at exactly the same time that the cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis seems to be on its last legs.

 

[Beachbag]

Pharm companies getting worried their profits will tumble?

Geri

 

[kesun]

According to the quoted article: "When I had a routine health check-up eight years ago, my cholesterol was so high that the laboratory thought there had been a mistake. I had 9.3 millimoles of cholesterol in every litre of blood — almost twice the recommended maximum.".

Is 9.3 exceptionally high? Mine's 9.5! But my ratio is very low, and I wouldn't go back on statins if you paid me.

Kate

 

[donnellysdogs]

Statins to me afe the equivalent of thalidomide back in the 60's.
I think in a few years time...probably another 30 years or so (I certainly wont be here, thats for sure), that they will indeed be relooking at the collossal side effects and damage that statins have done to ruin peoples lives..

The only thing that really bothers me is.. I have never heard of one single gp or consultant warning people that they may get side effects. When I have mentioned side effects there has not been one single GP that has reported them on their cards to the MHRA as they should.

No wonder nobody believes statins do damage, because the gp's and consultants never report the side effects as they should.
If patients dont report the side effexts the human race is going to be crippled from sideffects and statin costs...


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[forty six]

Last week the health section of the Daily Mail contained a scathing report on NICE, statins and the new POLYPILL. The most interesting thing for me is that out of the 12 panel members of NICE 8 of them have now declared links with the major drugs companies that produce diabetic related drugs. This is information that I have been trying to extract from NICE since December, with the phone being cut off on many occasions.

Our GP's are being controlled by these companies now as they are actively discouraged from offering their patients alternatives to medications or reporting the side effects that we are daily reporting to them. I have had many discussions with my GP following my diagnosis last November. I do not trust anything I am told. Not one word that comes out of a GP's mouth on this subject is unbiased. Their salaries now depend on towing the line and if this harms patients then it is down to us to prove it. They are told 'just give them a pill and send them away'.

I have now told a GP in my practice that I am no longer taking Simvastatin. He said that it was a bad idea as it saved lives, I pointed out the research published in The Lancet (the medical professions own publication) that stated statins have absolutely no benefit to anyone over the age of 69 - 70 and should not be given to women full stop as it can have a detrimental effect on hormone levels whilst going through the menopause. He told me that all research had concluded that statins were safe and had no side effects. I asked him who paid for this research and he declined to answer. Well we all know who paid for it, the companies who make it and who are in the pockets of NICE. This report also concluded that unless you had already had a heart attack or stroke there was no benefit in taking a statin.

When I discussed my diabetes with my GP in November and complained that she was prescribing tablets that I knew had bad side effects for others in my family, I was told that if she didn't do it 'in the right order' she would be audited and would get in trouble. I commented that pen pushers in Whitehall should not be able to tell GP's what to prescribe and she said: 'Welcome to my world'

I urge every one to really look into the drugs they are taking and check what the side effects are. The next one to pop up in surgeries across the country will be the POLYPILL. This is a combination of 3 blood pressure medications and a statin. How sneaky can you get? You will be taking a statin and not know it until you have to take pain killers every couple of hours.

I have gone on about this for long enough but a I really don't think we examine the facts and figures closely enough as patients. We are all too ready and willing to accept what we are being told as 'they know what they are doing'. Clearly this is not true. One researcher in South Africa has now gone on record as saying that blaming saturated fat for high cholesterol and heart disease is probably the biggest medical error ever known and that the ramifications will be felt for decades.

Try reading: The Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick - an eye opener.

 

[alaska]

Last week the health section of the Daily Mail contained a scathing report on NICE, statins and the new POLYPILL. The most interesting thing for me is that out of the 12 panel members of NICE 8 of them have now declared links with the major drugs companies that produce diabetic related drugs. This is information that I have been trying to extract from NICE since December, with the phone being cut off on many occasions.

NICE has responded to the accusation/evidence that they are influenced by pharmaceutical companies. Some might see the way they've answered this as avoiding the question somewhat.
http://www.nice.org.uk/newsroom/features/BehindTheHeadlinesIsNICEInfluencedByPharma.jsp

 

[Joe Sweatthang]

Cardio vascular problems can be managed and even reversed through diet and exercise alone and more effectively than drugs. I had heart palpitations for over 16 years and they have recently stopped completely. Solution :- Magnesium. Taken aurally and rubbed into skin. Why is it that GPs do not address peoples problems by looking into what they are and not eating ? Because they are trained to believe that only drugs aid in recovery and boy aren't the pharams happy about that.

 

[donnellysdogs]

Because they are paid by companies to give their drugs.. They are paid by govt to reach their targets of people on statins. This is why drs do not complete mhra forms as they should when people tell them they are having reactions to statins etc....

They arent told about vitamins etc at med school and they dont get paid by vitamin companies.

The way GP's learn and earn is not in the Patients interersts at all...


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Beshlie]

I have tried to take statins, off and on, for years, but always developed severe muscle pain, the worst attack when the muscles of my chest around my ribs flared and I thought I was having a heart attack. Stopped those statins and pain went away - took ONE and pain returned. Nevertheless, they still turn up when my prescriptions are delivered each month, I just don't take them. I already have to deal with the pain of fibromyalgia without adding to it!! Also, research does seem to be pointing towards sugar affecting the heart rather than cholesterol, I guess we will have to wait and see the outcome of all this.

 

[robert72]

If you are getting side effects, you should report them to MHRA Yellow Card scheme. As donnellysdogs says. it's unlikely that your Dr will, although there's an option to inform/involve your Dr when filling out the report.

http://www.mhra.gov.uk/Safetyinform...ortingsuspectedadversedrugreactions/index.htm

 

[Yorksman]

I started taking Atorvastatin in 2002 but in 2006 it was changed to Simvastatin. The GP denied it was due to cost and claimed that it was more suitable.

After a couple of years various aches and pains started and in 2011 I started to experience cramps. The GP said he didn't think it was related to Simvastatin.

That doctor was told to resign and another GP told me in Jan to stop taking it. All the problems cleared. A few days ago I saw a locum who looked the history up and she told me that it says changed from Atorvastatin to Simvastatin, 2006, reason costs.

She put me back on Atorvastatin saying that it had come down in price and that the new guidelines state that it is the preferred statin for people with diabetes. It is also requires only a quarter of the dosage that you get with simvastatin.

I'll see how this goes over the next few months.

 

[Yorksman]

I have now told a GP in my practice that I am no longer taking Simvastatin. He said that it was a bad idea as it saved lives

My GP also told me that 'statistically, you'll live longer taking statins'.

I told him that if the NHS were giving statins to healthy people who didn't need them, it was bound to make the outcomes look better than giving them to group of people who were ill and who did need them. "It skews the statistics" I told him. "It's not comparing like with like"

 

[Dillinger]

My GP also told me that 'statistically, you'll live longer taking statins'.

You could have also told him that he's misusing the word 'statistically' there; as it only relates to a group of people. A group of people taking statins has a lower statistical CVD outcome than an unstatinated group but it is in the region 1% lower; so where 4 out of 100 people die from CVD outcomes in a non statin group, 3 out of 100 will die in the statin group. You as an individual have a very slight increased probability of surviving but hardly anything worth writing home about. The statin group would also need to be taking statins for something like 5 years (if I remember correctly).

Statistical analysis is meaningless when you are talking about an individual.

Hardly seems the wonder drug does it? More than that it almost proves that cholesterol has little/nothing to do with CVD because statins, without a doubt, lower cholesterol so why don't they lower your risk of CVD by more than that pitiful amount? An amount by the way which is presented by the makers of statins as a 33% risk reduction of CVD. That's relative risk not absolute risk, but never mind about that eh? Just keep taking the pills...

Best

Dillinger

 

[hunnymummy1968]

I am so glad that I have read this thread before visiting my gp. The last time I saw my diabetic nurse she advised me to see the gp because I needed to go on statins after a cholesterol reading of 4.8!! I was gobsmacked to say the least, and didn't agree that I needed them. So I have put off going to see the gp for about four weeks. My mum, who is not diabetic, was put onto statins some years ago, and they played havoc with her insides, eventually giving her gastritis. She was then taken off them, but not before she started suffering several other problems in the meantime. I think I might just go and see the doc, but I will voice my concern and I will tell her that I wont be pushed into taking them. I will try to alter my lifestyle substantially more than I have already, to see if that will do the trick. Thanks for bringing attention to the subject, I, personally, appreciate it very much.

 

[forty six]

I started taking Atorvastatin in 2002 but in 2006 it was changed to Simvastatin. The GP denied it was due to cost and claimed that it was more suitable.

After a couple of years various aches and pains started and in 2011 I started to experience cramps. The GP said he didn't think it was related to Simvastatin.

That doctor was told to resign and another GP told me in Jan to stop taking it. All the problems cleared. A few days ago I saw a locum who looked the history up and she told me that it says changed from Atorvastatin to Simvastatin, 2006, reason costs.

She put me back on Atorvastatin saying that it had come down in price and that the new guidelines state that it is the preferred statin for people with diabetes. It is also requires only a quarter of the dosage that you get with simvastatin.

I'll see how this goes over the next few months.

I have just read an article that says there is now a link between Atorvastatin and women with no previous risk factors developing type 2. How can a GP say this is now the preferred option if this research has been published? It is an American site but it is still research.

http://www.drugs.com/answers/lipitor-type-ii-diabetes-758047.html

 

[forty six]

Statistical analysis is meaningless when you are talking about an individual.


Dillinger

Absolutely, but our GP's are now not allowed to treat us as individuals. I have known my GP for nearly 20 years and this is the only time we have disagreed about a form of treatment. I read the response from NICE and it is clear to me that it does not matter if they declare an interest or not, they should not be on the panel in the first place if they have such an interest and how can it be up to other members of the panel to decide if that interest has any bearing on the changes to guidelines. It is generally known as feathering ones own nest.

How can we trust that they are acting for our best interests?

 

[mpe]

The only thing that really bothers me is.. I have never heard of one single gp or consultant warning people that they may get side effects. When I have mentioned side effects there has not been one single GP that has reported them on their cards to the MHRA as they should.

Some of these may not even be "side effects" in the usual sense of the term.
Given that some of symptoms are exactly the same as for hypocholesterolemia. So "Overdose" might be a more accurate term than "side effect".

No wonder nobody believes statins do damage, because the gp's and consultants never report the side effects as they should.
If patients dont report the side effexts the human race is going to be crippled from sideffects and statin costs...

IME many people within the NHS are completly ignorant of hypocholesterolemia.

 

[mpe]

Cardio vascular problems can be managed and even reversed through diet and exercise alone and more effectively than drugs. I had heart palpitations for over 16 years and they have recently stopped completely. Solution :- Magnesium. Taken aurally and rubbed into skin.

Do you mean orally?

Why is it that GPs do not address peoples problems by looking into what they are and not eating ? Because they are trained to believe that only drugs aid in recovery and boy aren't the pharams happy about that.

About the only dietary advice I have had was a text version of the "eatwell plate".

 

[mpe]

My GP also told me that 'statistically, you'll live longer taking statins'.

I told him that if the NHS were giving statins to healthy people who didn't need them, it was bound to make the outcomes look better than giving them to group of people who were ill and who did need them. "It skews the statistics" I told him. "It's not comparing like with like"

That also assuming that these drugs are harmless to people who don't have hypercholesterolemia. Which is unlikely to be the case.

 

[mpe]

I am so glad that I have read this thread before visiting my gp. The last time I saw my diabetic nurse she advised me to see the gp because I needed to go on statins after a cholesterol reading of 4.8!! I was gobsmacked to say the least, and didn't agree that I needed them.

The biggest irony here is that 4.8 may well be too LOW. There's data showing that the healthy range is something like 5.2-6.2 mmol/l

So I have put off going to see the gp for about four weeks. My mum, who is not diabetic, was put onto statins some years ago, and they played havoc with her insides, eventually giving her gastritis. She was then taken off them, but not before she started suffering several other problems in the meantime.

Satins havn't been shown to do anything help women at all. It also appears to be the case that healthy cholesterol levels in women are somewhat higher than in men. Also the guidelines take no account of gender (or age).

I think I might just go and see the doc, but I will voice my concern and I will tell her that I wont be pushed into taking them. I will try to alter my lifestyle substantially more than I have already, to see if that will do the trick. Thanks for bringing attention to the subject, I, personally, appreciate it very much.

LDL particle size (and count) might well be a better indication of CVD risk. But the tests typically carried out are useless for determining this.