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

Is The Message Getting Through To The Nhs?

Dexterdobe

Well-Known Member
Messages
305
Location
Norfolk England
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Dislikes
Being unwell and seeing BG levels soar
I went to see my DN today full of trepidation. I spoke to her on the phone last week and she said that because I am diabetic I must take statins.
I'm 63 and was diagnosed last November HBA1c 53. I've followed a strict LCHF diet, exercised as much as I can and stopped all alcohol. HBA1c in March 42. Last week 40. Total cholesterol 5.5, ratio 3.5.
To my surprise, the nurse was really interested in hearing about how I had changed my life. She said that she very rarely sees people who have reduced their BS to normal levels and that I have done really well. We chatted about the rash of TV programmes on diabetes and she said that LC diets do seem to work. When the conversation turned to my cholesterol level, she wasn't interested in the numbers. "The recommendation is that all diabetics are on statins". She said. "Even those who have controlled their BS levels? " I asked. "Yes. No matter how well you control your BS you will always have a high risk of heart attacks and strokes. You should take statins for the rest of your life."
I declined to take a prescription and she noted that on my records.
Two steps forward and one back with the NHS I guess.
 
Well done on your HbA1c result. Stick to your guns re Statins, if you have done your research and are happy with your decision, I have! My GP does mention Statins each visit but doesn’t spend much time on it now as he knows my views!
 
Re the statins - That is so shocking I cannot say. And so medically irresponsible! A really good discussion to have with medical professionals in the 'statins' regard, is, ask them how many more years of life taking the statins will give you. And at what cost (ie the side effects). It is absolutely a reasonable question, and medical professionals should be getting into the habit of knowing the answer and being able to communicate it.

From the research I have done, the answer, if they can give it, is - it is not in terms of extra years but weeks IF you are a man middle aged and over and have had a CV event already. And the list of side effects, especially in terms of muscle problems, is legend.
 
Your at around the age when even the WFPB advocates who hate cholesterol accept that higher numbers at this stage in life for women is protective. Your ratio is spot on what I was told on a course yesterday is what they are looking for, although on the course they said total should be 4 ish, whilst my surgery say under 5. In your shoes I wouldn't even flinch.
 
I have read that taking statins for three years lowers your chance of a heart attack/stroke by 1%. How can such a modest advantage outweigh the potential side effects, not least of which is a rise in BS levels.
 
NHS, like the SS Torrey Canyon, finds it hard to change course, for similar reasons.
Feel like I'm a member of the People's Front of Judea (a non Zionist form).
 
It seems ludicrous, when statins do raise BG levels, if it's the high BG which causes the health issues. What are the risks of a 2 mmol/l rise in average BGs compared to a 1 point reduction in overall cholesterol I wonder? That is the question to ask, because that is the reality for some diabetics. The only question I have is whether the higher BGs are being discovered because the patient is taking an active interest in their health and getting the testing done, or whether it's a direct causation.
 
my friend i mentioned yesterday has cholesterol of 4 and they want him to go lower. He is 50 years old and on statins
 
lucylocket61 said:
my friend i mentioned yesterday has cholesterol of 4 and they want him to go lower. He is 50 years old and on statins
Click to expand...
Just plain crackers.
That nut job in Oxford has a lot to answer for.... I wish he would share his "data"...
 
Dexterdobe said:
I have read that taking statins for three years lowers your chance of a heart attack/stroke by 1%. How can such a modest advantage outweigh the potential side effects, not least of which is a rise in BS levels.
Click to expand...

I got my stat from the wonderful Malcolm Kendrick, I think, if memory serves.

malcolm kendrick 'the great cholesterol con'

It may have been his other excellent book on understanding the stats -
Doctoring Data: How to sort out medical advice from medical nonsense

Yes, re the risk re raised blood glucose levels so a risk for the dreaded type two. I am quite stunned when friends of mine in high risk groups for T2D are prescribed statins, which poses a real risk of raising blood glucose levels, when they have raised blood pressure readings. I step out of line and discuss it and direct to the myriad of studies corroborating this, but the fear of CVD (quite understandable) and veneration of doctors, and statins, it seems, overrides.

Another thing that stuns but shouldn't is I have yet to hear reported that a doctor or medical professional suggested physical activity as an excellent way to heart health and in response to CVD and stroke risk factors. Especially once I bought my own BP pump and did some experiments with physical activity and BP readings, precisely along the same lines as us using our BG metres re different foods and our BG readings. How come there aren't public service announcements on the tele about this???!! (Well, there aren't in NZ.) I feel much better re the CVD/stroke 'complication' risk of having pretty well constantly elevated BG (well, as well as I can?) since I have been tracking my own state of the arteries with my own pump. (I'm one of those people who gets 'white coat syndrome', plus I walk to the doctor's, and did not understand my wildly different BP readings at medical centres and hospitals. And now the BP readings should be considered closely, due to the stroke and heart attacks risk for diabetics.)

But I should add - it IS great that a DN in your country was so positive about the role of low-carbing in diabetes treatment. Baby steps?
 
Follow the money.. just having a quick browse of research using google scholar, and practically all of the research recommending statins are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. It's so disappointing.
 

Loving Kendrick's work. Now there's good old fashioned no nonsense books written by a canny Scot!
 
MrsGruffy said:
Follow the money.. just having a quick browse of research using google scholar, and practically all of the research recommending statins are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies. It's so disappointing.
Click to expand...
Apparently, statins are by miles the pharma industries biggest moneymaker. Billions of £'s have been invested in them so it's not surprising the system wants their use to grow is it.
 
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.…