Squire Fulwood
Expert
If I was reporting false side effects then I did it four times on four different statins over a period of two years or so. My DN does not give up easily. Now, even she admits I can't tolerate them.
If I was reporting false side effects then I did it four times on four different statins over a period of two years or so. My DN does not give up easily. Now, even she admits I can't tolerate them.
Exactly the same for me . Tried 3 different ones all the same problems so now have intolerant of statins on my medical records.
The Express doesn't give much info on the background of the trial but via the Hindustan Times there is this info ...
"The trial was funded by Pfizer, which markets atorvastatin under the trade name Lipitor."
I'll have to remember that one next week if they try to nag me at the diabetic clinic to take them! With the NHS budget being as it is, see how quickly they will back off!One ploy to avoid statins is to say that you're not interested in treating risk factors with long-term drugs, but if they want to order a coronary artery calcium score (or some other expensive test) to prove that you have CVD, then you'll consider it. With all the budget constraints going on, I doubt if they'll go along with it![]()
That's my opinion - the body makes it for a good reason - to repair damage - usually caused by chronic inflammation - it can't do the job its supposed to if it ain't there!OK this is the way I see it. Just me, my own thoughts and logic, no studies (I don't trust them anyway). So cholesterol is naturally produced by the body, because it needs it. We need more as we get older, so we produce more. If we artificially lower it then we haven't got enough cholesterol for our needs and therefore inflammation etc increases and we get muscle pains. It might be true that statins don't cause muscle pains directly, it's probably the cholesterol being too low for our own personal needs that causes the pains.
I will happily remain statin free
It also says at the end of the article that the statins dose was much lower than the one regularly prescribed now so makes the conclusions unrelaible ie 10mg might have no effect but 40 mg might. Worth reading though.A study in the Lancet has concluded that patients suffer side effects from statins due to a 'nocebo' effect. They experience them because they expect them.
They are calling for the side effects NOT to be listed due to this.
The study compared a dosage of 10mg of Atorvastatin vs a placebo where the rate of muscle aches and pains reported was the same for both arms of the trial.
My first thought was that 10mg of Atorvastatin was only a very small dosage.
http://www.express.co.uk/life-style...-side-effects-life-saving-statins-cholesterol
The Express doesn't give much info on the background of the trial but via the Hindustan Times there is this info ...
"The trial was funded by Pfizer, which markets atorvastatin under the trade name Lipitor."
lol if they all do that then next we will be hearing how great all-bran is for diabetic control.She knows my diet is LCHF but there is no box for it so instead she ticks the high fibre box!!!
At last, I find a doctor saying what I have said on this forum for years!Statins are bad news for muscles, and your most important muscle ? Your heart.
You don't need a "ploy" just say you don't want to take them. The doctor is supposed to offer them, if he can tick a box marked "declined" he has done his job. My doctor just said " ok fair enough".I'll have to remember that one next week if they try to nag me at the diabetic clinic to take them! With the NHS budget being as it is, see how quickly they will back off!
I may have conflated comments from a number of her videos, so don't blame me if she doesn't exactly say that in the video I posted. I was browsing a few, this morning IMD.At last, I find a doctor saying what I have said on this forum for years!![]()