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

Statins As A Cause Of Diabetes

bulkbiker said:
Why?
Click to expand...
I did a trial time without them and my cholesterol went up quite a bit. My doctor thinks it is hereditary I have been on them for about 12 years and never had any of the side effects a lot here have said they had
 
Pinkorchid said:
I did a trial time without them and my cholesterol went up quite a bit. My doctor thinks it is hereditary I have been on them for about 12 years and never had any of the side effects a lot here have said they had
Click to expand...
So you haven't been convinced by the argument that higher cholesterol can be protective for some (most?) older women?
 
That was said about women who do not have diabetes and anyway how high is good there must be a limit
 
Last edited:
Depends very highly on which type/size cholesterol we are talking about. My total cholesterol is considered high but my breakdown is imo spiffing.
 
Factor in how parameters were set i.e <5 should be the goal and you then realise that high/low total cholesterol is even more misleading.
 
Pinkorchid said:
That was said about women who do not have diabetes and anyway how high is good there must be a limit
Click to expand...

https://www.karger.com/Article/FullText/486374

"have revealed that atherosclerosis is caused by statins taken to lower LDL-C, as well as by warfarin and some types of vegetable fats and oils, in the absence of significantly elevated LDL-C levels. Thus, the promotion of statin treatment by the Statement is rather risky and we do not feel that the conclusions are justified for the prevention of ASCVD."
 
This thread is interesting. Just got through a conversation with my GP who wanted me to take statins. My overall cholesterol? 5.1. Her argument is it has gone up from 4.9, mine was the last time I took statins my memory and my overall condition was awful. She says I am at a 20% risk of some heart event in the next 10 years, but I'm 66. Of course I am!
 

She is way behind the times looking at total cholesterol. Even NICE has ditched this. Did your HDL increase by enough to make up the tiny 0.2 rise? Deary me. I give up with some of our GPs.
 
gardengnome42 said:
I keep reading that taking a statin can cause Type 2 Diabetes or at any rate they are a risk factor. If this is so then why are NICE so keen to promote the things? Or are they in league with Big Pharma?
Click to expand...
My hba1c was 48 at diagnosis and I was prescribed Pravostatin - 3 months later my hba1c had gone up to 54. I stopped taking the statins after about 6 months due to other side effects and within 3 months my Hba1c had come down to 42 and has been in the 30s for the last 4 years so I believe that statins probably ‘pushed’ me into diabetes. Hence why I always refuse the DNs kind offer of a statin prescription!
 
Bluetit1802 said:
She is way behind the times looking at total cholesterol. Even NICE has ditched this. Did your HDL increase by enough to make up the tiny 0.2 rise? Deary me. I give up with some of our GPs.
Click to expand...
Yes of course. It's tricky. She's so nice I wouldn't want to put her off. But I'm not taking statins, esp since my overall cholesterol is within the 'normal' range. Really it's the use of statistics that bothers me. 20% increase risk of what? An event? Or I'm in the 20% who has a risk of any sort of an event? I'd have thought more than 20% of white males are at risk of some heart event before they are 76. What does the number fall to with the statins? 19% or 0%? It's hopeless waffle presenting itself as statistics, frankly.
 

What it means is, according to them, that you have a 20% risk of a CV or stroke event within the next ten years. But this isn't an overall 20% risk - it is a 20% risk out of any other people with exactly the same criteria as yourself, not 20% of the whole population. You can see the calculation here - have a play with it and see how your GP arrived at the 20%. If you take diabetes out of the equation it halves the risk in my case. https://qrisk.org/three/ and it goes up every birthday!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
A figure sometimes quoted for the benefit of taking a statin after a cardio vascular event is 1.1% and as Kendrick and others have said, this equates to a figure of roughly one week's extra life in ten years.

1.1% measuring what? Because 1 week every 10 years is about 0.002%
 

From that article: ".....have revealed that atherosclerosis is caused by statins taken to lower LDL-C, as well as by warfarin and some types of vegetable fats and oils."
I developed atherosclerosis before I started taking stains. I didn't take warfarin but I did (probably) eat far too many dodgy vegetable oils and I also smoked, the combination of which probably caused my atherosclerosis.
Now I have it my specialist recommends a statin to try and help prevent a lump of my blockage breaking off.
Others, who have had a previous cardiac event, are recommended a statin to help prevent them having another - proven (!?).

Answering your question above about whether I would love to hear about new treatment / drugs, of course I would. What I'm a little frustrated about is the constant blanket advice about zero statins, earlier in this thread backed up by erroneous facts.
If you're basically healthy then, yes, I advocate nil statins but there is a significant minority who, until proven medical science tells us otherwise, benefit from them.

From this article just yesterday:

"Experts do agree that for people who already have a high heart risk - particularly those who have already had a heart attack or a stroke - statins are proven lifesavers, slashing the chance of a second attack."

Coronary heart disease is huge killer, but is (I believe) diminishing slightly against cancer for example. (it depends which study you look at). For a proportion of those people a statin will help.
 
Jo_the_boat said:
Others, who have had a previous cardiac event, are recommended a statin to help prevent them having another - proven
Click to expand...

I would say possibly but debatable..far from proven.. but
You do agree that blanket prescription of statins for anyone with a "number" over an arbitrary total is not good. Whether in your specific situation they may be doing you some good is a possibility (although also maybe open to debate).
It's your decision to take them though and it should also be everybody else's and people should be as well informed as they can be before taking anything.. hence my "crusade" to show people that their doctor may not be correct in prescribing them.

The possibility that they may even cause the problem they are supposed to be helping control is in my view rather frightening.
 
I was offered statins a few years ago before i retired There was a phone call from the surgery .A person on the other end said we are putting you on another pill. i was already on pills for high blood pressure. She said it was a statin for my cholesterol I said is my cholesterol high .She said it is a bit .She said i would have to have a liver function test and i would have aches and pains.I said no thanks i get enough aches and pains as it is with my heavy job.I bought an Accutrend GC meter and tested my cholesterol ,the reading was 6.3 mm/l .I went to see the doctor and told him i was not going to take statins .The the blood test cholesterol reading from the hospital was 6.3 mm/l showing my meter was accurate.I decided to try and reduce my cholesterol by taking Benocol type yogurts .Within about 3 or 4 weeks my cholesterol reading dropped to 5.3 mm/l.Which was good enough for me.A few years later the chief doctor of the malpractice noticed i was not taking statins. He gave me a reprimand I said i was taking a cod liver oil and garlic tablet every day.As a result he refused to prescribe any stronger pain killers for my very pain arthritis in my left hip . And cancelled my hip replacement surgery later on .I saw this on my medical records.recently.The last doctor i saw tried her hardest to get me to take statins and got really upset when i refused to take them No chance.I avoid the medics like the plague.the ones i've seen are totally useless.But there again i am elderly.A lost cause.
 
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.…