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

Statins,Aaaaaaargh!!!!!


I suffered muscular pain and weakness after just five days on Atorvastatin, gave it up after seventh day.
The DN told me in quite an abrupt fashion "That's impossible! Statins do not cause pain" thereby calling me a liar.
 
I took atorvastatin for 5 weeks, along with Metformin.
I had dreadful pains in my muscles and joints, itching all around my body, a strange alteration in how things tasted, I was incontinent, bewildered, could not concentrate - I could not remember the songs I sang (thankfully I wrote them down so I could relearn them later) and then at Christmas 2016 I went out and did the Christmas shopping twice. I was in such a state that my husband stopped taking statins as if both of us were non compos mentis it would be pretty disastrous.
It has taken a long time for things to get back to normal, but the final painful muscle stopped aching when I began to take a fizzy vitamin drink not long ago.
 
My total Cholesterol is 7.8. At its ‘worst’ it was 8.6. Apart from, I know that women with the highest Cholesterol have the greatest life expectancy, so maybe I will live for ever. And my HDL and trigs are stellar! (LCHF you know).

My delightful GP, at my annual review says “What’s your current thinking on Statins”, to which I reply, “Wouldn’t touch ‘em with a barge pole, there is no way I will ever take that medication.” So he warmly congratulates me on my HbA1c (this year 29) and I leave with a spring in my step!

So glad I read Malcolm Kendrick’s ‘Great Cholesterol Con’ before I went down that route!

Just say no, politely and with a smile!
 

That book is brilliant, such an eye opener.
 
@stevetur What is a backhander?. Please excuse my ignorance.
 
Moggely said:
@stevetur What is a backhander?. Please excuse my ignorance.
Click to expand...

A backhander, in this case, means a payment of a dubious kind.
It's other meaning is a slap with the back of the hand.
 
Guzzler said:
A backhander, in this case, means a payment of a dubious kind.
It's other meaning is a slap with the back of the hand.
Click to expand...
@Gussler now that is really really bad .Doctors therefore do not care about the health of their patients.
 
Moggely said:
@Gussler now that is really really bad .Doctors therefore do not care about the health of their patients.
Click to expand...

Agreed but it is not individual doctors who get the money, it is by way of funding for their Practice. The way things are run at the moment is that if a Practice reaches targets set by the Health Authorities they get extra funding. Instead of the better system whereby Practices would receive more funding by results. The results being of benefit to the patients. Better health outcomes equals fewer prescriptions, fewer appointments and fewer referrals, the NHS saves money and the patient lives a happier, hopefully longer, life.
 
They are called QOF payments, you can google it and see how much the practice gets paid for hitting targets, it is a big eye opener, people with diabetes are big earners for a practice!

When I’m smilingly refusing Statins, I generally add a sympathetic sounding, “Sorry if it affects your QOF funding, Doctor”. I don’t think it does, actually, provided they have promoted NICE protocol, they can tick the box!

But it’s nice to remind them that we know how this works!

http://www.nhsemployers.org/-/media...-19/2018-19-QOF-guidance-for-stakeholders.PDF
 
No!
 

So this explains why they want everyone to be on statins..

DM004. The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, whose last measured total cholesterol (measured within the preceding 12 months) is 5 mmol/l or less

even to the detriment of health..

And why they have such low targets for HbA1c levels

DM007. The percentage of patients with diabetes, on the register, in whom the last IFCC-HbA1c is 59 mmol/mol or less in the preceding 12 months
 
I'm pretty sure my doctor is gearing up to putting me on Cholesterol tablets. If there is anyone in the know these are my readings last test.5'4 over all. triglyceride 1.8. HDL Cholesterol. 1.2. Cholesterol/HDL 4.5. Non HDL-Chol.4.2. LDL cholesterol 3.4. I havent got a clue what any of this means. However i will never go on those pills. Almost killed my sister.
 

The best thing you could do to improve your Cholesterol Ratios is to fully adopt a Low Carb High Fat Diet. It would also be brilliant for your diabetes management. And when you next have a cholesterol test, ask for a morning appointment, and even if they say you don’t need to fast, fast anyway.

I wouldn’t be too concerned with a Total Cholesterol of 5.4 (remember women with the highest Cholesterol have the longest life expectancy), but I would prefer a ratio of under 4 (which means you have to get your HDL up) and your triglycerides down to under 1. This would all occur naturally with a LCHF diet.

If you do decide to go LCHF, your Total Cholesterol May go up slightly, if your HDL goes up, but it will then probably drop back or go lower in time.
 
OK firstly you don't have to take anything that you don't want to. So tell the doctor if you don't want statins.
What kind of thing have you been eating? Cholesterol (like blood sugar) changes throughout the day sometimes by quite large margins and does seem to be effected by what we have eaten to some extent. Was your last test fasted? If not then it's pretty meaningless.
 
[QUOTE="bulkbiker, post: 1849963, member: 219467" Cholesterol (like blood sugar) changes throughout the day sometimes by quite large margins and does seem to be effected by what we have eaten to some extent. Was your last test fasted? If not then it's pretty meaningless.[/QUOTE]

My Dr said exactly that - he said that cholesterol can change in minutes so the tests are actually really only a snapshot of that time. He wasn't suggesting they were wrong, just that the levels could show high at test time and be lower an hour later.
 
[/QUOTE]My Dr said exactly that - he said that cholesterol can change in minutes so the tests are actually really only a snapshot of that time. He wasn't suggesting they were wrong, just that the levels could show high at test time and be lower an hour later.[/QUOTE]
Wow your doctor is pretty enlightened.. I rarely, if ever, have heard of a GP that says that.
 
Last edited:
Madmaureen said:
No!
Click to expand...
No, definitely not.

The theory (now throughly debunked with forward thinking Doctor’s who keep up to date with research) started with the now discredited Heart / Health Hypothesis. In the 70s the theory was that saturated fat was linked to heart disease. So we were all told, for
the sake of our hearts, to follow a Low Fat High Carbohydrate Diet. There are only 3 different types of foodstuff, Protein, Fats and Carbohydrates. In most diets, the Protein stays about the same, so if you reduce fats you have to compensate with something. So whole populations were advised to base meals on carbohydrates, avoid fatty cuts of meat, trim the fat, throw it away, grill foods, abandon traditional fats (lard, butter etc) and instead eat ‘modern fats’ so called ‘vegetable oil’ that’s never seen a vegetable, and margarine, produced in factories from artificial ingredients.

Because people with diabetes have a higher rate of heart disease, it followed on that these people should also follow this heart healthy diet.

The problem is, fat is relatively benign in terms of blood sugar, it raises blood sugar not at all, protein is not too bad, but carbs spike blood sugar the most. So most diabetics have to embark on a drug regime that is typified by an ever increasing requirement for medications. The drug companies are very happy (more sales) the food manufacturers are very happy (high carb foods are made from cheap ingredients, have an excellent shelf life, and by adding more and more sugar to recipes, become more and more addictive.

But modern, forward thinking Doctor’s (like David Unwin) have realised that the heart disease is not actually related to saturated fat, it is actually related to inflammation, and inflammation is caused, not by saturated fat, but by carbohydrates, high blood sugar and high insulin levels.

And then along came ‘the wonder drugs’ Statins.

For anybody who is facing a Statin prescription and not happy about it, there is too much information for a forum post. Get hold of a copy of Malcolm Kendrick’s ‘The Great Cholesterol Con’. It is packed full of information and actually, it’s a cracking read, written with humility, honesty and a very dry sense of humour!
 
And that’s why, after 5 years with a normal hba1c, I am still being told I am not in remission - I earn them money although not as much as I could do because I refuse to take statins!
 
Someone worked out that someone taking a certain statin product for 40 years at max dose, would probably prolong their lifespan by only a couple of days. All that pain and S** all gain!

The statin study data used in a recent meta study last year showed that women saw no benefit from taking them, and there was a marked increase in mortality risk as one gets older (bathtub curve) and the only group of people who showed a benefit were those who are recovering from a recent CVE to prevent a follow-on event. Statins do not appear to protect against a CVE in the first place.
 
Guzzler said:
I suffered muscular pain and weakness after just five days on Atorvastatin, gave it up after seventh day.
The DN told me in quite an abrupt fashion "That's impossible! Statins do not cause pain" thereby calling me a liar.
Click to expand...
Got the T shirt. A recent scientific study performed by one of the manufacturers (seller?) of a statin product was trumpeted recently in the press where they found that there wasn't a single report of pain or stiffness that was attributed to the statin use. All those pains were arthritis or over use/ stressed joints, but not their medication NO WAY ! Of course NICE and PHE lapped it up.
 
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.…