• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

bmj statins & lies

Agreed....I think we should agree to disagree ....just a suggestion.... you can always add me to your 'ignore' list if I irritate you in any way...that's what it's there for. I shan't be doing the same because I like reading your posts and sometimes agree with them (!)xx
 
mpe said:
IIRC they have been tested on women and found to be useless. At least in respect of CVD. Even in men they only appear to be of any use to a minority.
Click to expand...

I wondered if they included in this report the advice from a South African cardiologist who believes that the following should be on the wall of every doctors surgery: STOP - DO NOT GIVE STATINS TO WOMEN! THEY HAVE NO EFFECT.

It has been reported that they can hinder or make worse the menopause because they drop the cholesterol level too low.

Read; Pure, White and Deadly by Pro. John Yudkin - your eyes will pop out of you head.
 
My cholesterol level when last checked at GP's was 5.1. It's been in the 5's for years no matter what I eat. The GP's have been trying to push statins on me ever since I was diagnosed in 2005. Every year it's the same argument! NICE recommends every diabetic be put on statins, apparently!
 
I reckon if your total cholesterol is in the 4s or 5s you're in the right place. I'm fairly sure the NICE logic goes 'Diabetics are a higher heart disease risk, statins reduce cholesterol, high cholesterol increases risk of heart disease, therefore put diabetics on statins'. Flawed logic of course, perpetuated by the pharm companies.
 
If your on simvastatin check out the The new draft NICE guideline on lipid modification, you might want to discuss this with your GP.

"In this respect, NICE’s suggestion that fixed doses of atorvastatin are used (simvastatin is out, following emerging data on its higher rhabdomyolysis risk) will be a relief to GPs and practice nurses, who will not face the burdensome exercise of titrating the dose against an arbitrary cholesterol level."

http://www.gponline.com/viewpoint-n...scular-system/hyperlipidaemia/article/1295573
 
Last year the GP gave me the option of 40mg simvastatin or 10mg atorvastatin but I have refused to take either for the time being.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
 

Maybe it should say "... no POSITIVE effect".
Blocking hepatic steroid synthesis is definitly an "effect".
A big part of the problem is that the people pushing them don't appear to understand the concept of "too low" when it comes to a compound critical to the functioning of just about any animal cell. In the midst of all the fuss the question of the biological functions of LDL appears to be overlooked.
One thing also not well known is that LOW cholesterol is a risk factor for a whole host of things, including heart attacks. The current guidelines are obviously bogus since the lower limit is 0. But very disturbingly the actual "healthy range" could well be something like 5.2-6.2 mmol/l (for middle aged men, higher for both women and older people.)
 
sanguine said:
I reckon if your total cholesterol is in the 4s or 5s you're in the right place.
Click to expand...

There's actually evidence that 5 may make more sense as a minimum.


One of the flaws is that low cholesterol also increases the risk of heart disease. Another flaw is that the numbers used appear to be the lowest the drug companies could get away with so as to have as high a sales level as possible. Rather than having anything to do with what's actually a healthy cholesterol reading for a human (or a mouse for that matter). A third flaw is a cholesterol reading could be a symptom related to excess hepatic lipogenesis. But the simplest treatment here is highly politically incorrect...
 
I stopped taking statins because of muscle pain, sleepless nights and brain fog. I'm still left with brain fog and NO it isn't old age! I did this after removing carbs from my diet which led to my total cholesterol dropping to 3.5 and full and frank discussions with my GP who was very understanding. In fact when I mentioned the recent survey of 500 GPs where 60% said they would not prescribe statins for themselves or a family member, she just smiled and said "I can think of one of my family", I'm assuming one she didn't like so much.
It's worth reading the NICE guidelines because that's how I discovered that there is a risk assessment that is meant to be performed before statins are prescribed and that even then they should only be prescribed if you the patient are happy.
 
lnteresting about happy given the yelling match my gp and l had when he tried to bully me into statins l am very stubborn though.....still not on statins
 
Interesting to see Ben Goldacre's view on the relatively recent statins debate

Rather than picking any particular side of the argument, he points that patient's priorities are different. Some people may wish to take statins for the 1 in 200 chance of avoiding a heart attack, others may feel that the 1 in 200 chance is not a justifiable reason to take a statin every day of their life.
http://www.badscience.net/2014/06/what-statins-tell-us-about-the-mess-in-evidence-based-medicine/
 
Here is Dr. Kendrick with a pretty brilliant letter to NICE concerning primary prevention prescription of statins (i.e. giving them to people who are not at risk of CVD).

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2014/06/27/another-backlash-begins/

It you were NICE and you got that you'd have to say 'er, well, um, ok.' unless you were sociopathic. NICE will say 'we're not budging.'

Best

Dillinger
 
I have also recently been told that the company that makes atorvastatin in the states are going through a court case with people who were prescribed it for high cholesterol but who did not have diabetes. Apparently one of the side effects of this drug is elevated BG. So now they are actually giving people diabetes from using another medication. All the while the directors of these companies get richer and richer.
 
Have you a link?
 
Mud Island Dweller said:
Ian l just did a quick search these links may be of use in your litigation query
Click to expand...
I read this link and it sent a shiver down my spine. A couple of years ago hubbie lost job and it looked like we would lose everything. I went into work one day and couldn't stop crying. I was sent home and signed off for a month. I struggled to leave the house, didn't want to see anyone from work and didn't want to go near anyone other than family. The doc tried to give me meds but I refused. I made myself go out for walks, avoided crowds, shopped in a different town and got through it. Reading this link I think I was very lucky to have refused the meds and managed to get through it. I know some people are not so lucky!
 
Quote from Dr Malcom Kendrick in the Great Cholesterol Con: http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias=aps&field-keywords=kendrick con

"As a man, I can't truly speak for women, but ladies I really think you should be outraged by the complete silence on this issue. When your doctor is badgering you to take a statin, do you not think that it might be of some importance for them to mention that, while this pill may slightly reduce your risk of stroke and heart disease, it will not on average increase your life expectancy by one single day? Or to put it another way, taking a statin may change what is written on your death certificate, but it will not change the date."

Discussion on the 2004 Heart Protection Study in the UK which included 5000 women. This team decided not to release the total mortaility figures despite many requests from highly respectable professionals. This is true of most statin trials.

Doctors are encouraged to get cholesterol levels below 5 mmol/l. "If they achieve this in a high enough percentage of their practice population they are then paid large sums of money."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…