Statins and CoQ10

I stopped taking the Atorvastatin as I went out to do the shopping for Christmas, when I came out of the supermarket I could not remember where I'd parked the car, and when I found it I opened up the back and found that I'd already done the shopping but forgotten to take it into the house. That really frightened me, and along with the side effects from the Metformin I decided that whatever benefits the tablets might bring, they weren't worth having.
Although I stopped the tablets my memory is still not as good as it was, and the pains in my leg muscles still bother me.
The sad thing is that my cholesterol ratios are good, the total went down, so I did not need the statin, and my blood glucose readings are usually normal.

@maxjoe121 Hello. I had a nurse mention statins to me after her telling me that my cholesterol was high. Lucky for me my diet changes lowered my levels for me, as yet I haven't been given statins. I'd have to say go with the advice given by your healthcare team... try them if you need them.. they could work well for you.

I am totally biased against them. I took four different kinds in an attempt to find one that didn't cause pain and muscle problems and they all did so. I took CoQ10 throughout and I wonder what else might have happened had I not done so. I was finally classified as "Intolerant of statins".

The only thing in my favour is that I took them as prescribed by DN without being put off by scare stories. I acquired my own personal scare stories and I will never take them again.

Zoe Harcombe has some interesting findings on cholesterol levels towards the end of this presentation:

Here is a screen shot: the line shows that for women as the cholesterol level goes up the number of deaths from CVD (cardio vascular disease) actually goes down ... Watch the video to find out where these results come from

That's an interesting chart, considering Zoe is actually a statistician.
She's taken all the individual points, and drawn a line through them, to represent the actual trend of those points as a straight line.
It comes out with an r value of .519.
What she never seems to say is what the 'r' value actually represents.

r is the probability the line she has assigned is the actual true representation of the trend.

So an r of .519 means she's 52% confident that she is probably correct.
And 48% confident she is probably wrong to choose this line, as a statistician.

So, in laymans terms, it's a 50/50 gamble on that line being correct.

If you do decide to take them - supplementing with Q10 is a must - statins interfere with how the body absorbs Q10 so you need extra. They tried to give me them - I'm like you - my levels were slightly over where they like them - but the test results were 3 months old. At this point I had finally got off the diabetes meds due to weight loss, exercise and carb control. I take Milk Thistle instead - at least this is known to help the liver. They can keep their statins - too risky for my taste. Either way, good luck with what you decide.

I am also very doubtful about statins, as everything I read says they are harmful to normal body function and the only benefit is lower cholesterol. Whether lower cholesterol is in itself a benefit is also in doubt.
What I really object to though is that I do have some poor blood readings, but rather than investigate why, all the GP wants me to do is take statins to cover up the symptoms. Meanwhile the real cause of my problems continues. I may have a mineral or vitamin deficiency; liver, thyroid or kidney problems; or cancer. As far as they're concerned, problem covered up and practice statistics improved.

douglas99 said:

That's an interesting chart, considering Zoe is actually a statistician.
She's taken all the individual points, and drawn a line through them, to represent the actual trend of those points as a straight line.
It comes out with an r value of .519.
What she never seems to say is what the 'r' value actually represents.

r is the probability the line she has assigned is the actual true representation of the trend.

So an r of .519 means she's 52% confident that she is probably correct.
And 48% confident she is probably wrong to choose this line, as a statistician.

So, in laymans terms, it's a 50/50 gamble on that line being correct.

Click to expand...

Hmm Good statistical information but is the certainty related to the fact that is about the limited number of straight line that goes through the busiest part of the graph and divide the other entries, and the choice of one, or is it not a straight line at all?

It seems likely that cholesterol level may be a factor, but other factors may dominate in many cases.

Yesterday I watched the documentary "The Widowmaker" which is available to view on dietdoctor.com if you are a member. It details the history of stents and heart scans for calcification of arteries. It turns out that hospitals in the US were making a small fortune using stents to open up blockages in the arteries, but the same hospitals were not interested in the heart scans as they would lose revenue from many unnecessary operations. Insurance companies in the US were not interested in paying for the calcification scans because it was a long-term health gain and most of their patients were on 5 year insurance plans.

The film did highlight the fact that many heart attacks were experienced from people with normal heath factors, such as cholesterol. The calcification of plaque in the arteries was a much more reliable predictor of hearth attacks. The film is worth watching if you are concerned about heart attacks. See https://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/27/movies/review-the-widowmaker-a-heart-care-documentary.html?_r=0