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

Statins - Do I or Don't I?

I'm afraid I don't agree with much of what Dr Sarah says ref statins. I respect her for being a good GP, but she has also chosen to follow a selected bunch of 'experts'. There are many other equally qualified experts who would disagree with her, so the decison remains yours. Do your research and try to follow those who have tracked all the research back to the 60s or so and have analysed the statistics themselves or have confidence in the analysis they are looking at. Sadly big pharma does lurk in the background so you need to avoid those experts (often Professors) who have their university research part-funded by companies with a vested interest.
 
@Daibell, I'm afraid I don't go along with this 'big pharma' nonsense, but Dr Jarvis view is as good as the next Dr's and who you choose to believe in the statin debate is entirely up to the individual, but we all collectively agree that people should do their own research and discuss the subject with their own HCP's.
 
I reluctantly agreed to take statins after a number of attempts to lower my LDL naturally ie. low fat diets over a period of 2 years. My LDL was 192 mg/dl 3 months and after taking only the lowest dose statins (10mg) I got it down to 100 mg/dl. I didn't rely solely on the statins , artichoke supplements , high fiber and that cholesterol lowering margarine also contributed.
 

Taken at face value the line of that piece that screamed out at me was this:

"The only side effect which was significantly more common in people taking statins was developing type 2 diabetes, although they estimate that 80% of the people on statins who got type 2 diabetes would have been diagnosed with it anyway."

If taken at face value I believe what she is saying is that of everyone that developed type 2 diabetes while on statins, 20% (of those people) would NOT have developed the disease had it not been for the statins.

But then she goes on to say this:

"But what does that mean to patients? Should they keep taking the tablets? If you’ve had a heart attack or stroke, have type 2 diabetes or have been told by your doctor you’re at very high risk of heart attack or stroke, the answer is categorically yes. All the players in this complicated academic debate agree on that."

So ***? Someone correct me if I am wrong but at the very least I would think that there are a significant amount of folks out there, that are on statins that should not be, simply because the statins either caused or at least complicated their type 2 diagnosis. Almost certainly that would include ALL OF THE 20% of folks who developed type 2 that otherwise would not have. And possibly many of the other 80% that would have developed it anyway... although that is certainly debatable.

What is glaringly missing from that article is this number: What percentage of the total number of people that are put onto statins... later develop type 2? Is it 1 in 100? 1 in a million? 1 in 10? That number is important to know. My own GP says that the number of people that develop type 2, (where the taking of statins is directly to blame), is 1 in 500. But does that mean that the use of statins had zero effect on the other 499? That seems unlikely. Now we are back into that grey area. Also worth noting is that my GP is quite possibly biased in whose data he refers to.

For me personally, I developed type 2 within 3 months of being put on Lipitor. There is no way for me to go back and unring the bell. I will never know what role, if any, Lipitor played in all of this. I do know that I don't want to be on any meds and am working toward my own comfort zone.

In the end I agree with noblehead... it's up to each individual. Do your own research and be comfortable with your direction.

I think that it is very significant that you have to believe in what you are doing.





 
Last edited by a moderator:
That article is excellent. It explains what relative risk is and re-expresses it in terms of absolute risk.

The fact that I like the article BTW does not mean I am a maniacal anti-statins person. Just a logical person. In the case of statins, logic leads one to say No thanks, unless one has already had a CVD episode (in which case after treatment for five years one has a 1 in 83 chance of delaying death, a 1 in 39 chance of avoiding a non-fatal heart attack, and a 1 in 125 chance of avoiding a stroke, according to the review on the NNT site Indy posted above).
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Daibell, I think Malcolm Kendrick isn't a consultant. As Sid says, if you can ignore the sarcasm, you're either a GP or a specialist. Kendrick has studied the CVD research literature in depth, though, and advances a hypothesis about CVD based on that.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi. Yes, you are right. I think I may have mis-remembered this from one of his books.
 
Google 'Prof Rory Collins statins' and go to the Daily Express link 30 Mar 2014 and see that he has received large amounts from Big Pharma for research. I wasn't aware of this when I made my post but it is so common with University research funding. You have to decide whether it would have impacted any research results.
 

@Pinkorchid I have been away and have only just spotted this thread. I think we need to divide side effects into two main categories. There's the ones that may be quoted on the leaflets as known side effects (nosebleeds, sore throat, headaches, feeling sick, muscle and joint pain etc). Anyone may or may not get these.

The long term side effects are the ones that mostly concern me. Statins have been linked with higher blood sugars, and therefore they can cause diabetes. They have also been linked with age related macular degeneration amongst other things. I found quite a few studies/articles which said that if you used statins for over a year then there was a risk of this and also a greater risk of becoming diabetic. This is one of the more general links I read about why one shouldn't take statins.

http://drsircus.com/medicine/run-from-your-statin-recommending-cardiologist

My own view which I have stated many times on this forum is that it is well known that statins cause muscle problems in some people. The heart is also a muscle. Why take a drug that may harm the very organ it is supposed to protect? And why mess up other organs whilst trying to protect the heart? It doesn't make any kind of sense to me.
 
CheeseJunkie said:
From the NICE guideline (2014):
"Offer atorvastatin 20 mg for the primary prevention of CVD to people who have a 10% or greater 10‑year risk of developing CVD. Estimate the level of risk using the QRISK2 assessment tool."
Click to expand...

Note the first word, "offer". I wasn't offered one, which presumes some discussion between GP - or junior locum in my case - and the patient to come to an agreement. He just sat there, wrote out a prescription (for simvastatin which I think is cheaper) and handed it to me.

Did I take them? What do you think?
 

Good point!

If a new medical condition (e.g. Macular degeneration or T2) emerges a year or 5 down the line, who is going to make the connection? The person taking the tablets? The doc who may not even notice the statin prescription when they refer you to a specialist? The optician? I've certainly never been questioned by my optician about other prescriptions.

Interestingly, I have been in exactly this situation with another drug, called Cabergoline.

I have been taking it for nearly 20 years to treat a tumour in the pituitary gland. I know that I read the contraindications listed in the leaflet when I started it, but it was a necessary drug (it still is) because it reduces the amount of hormone the tumour pumps out. I have no criticism of the initial prescription. I still need to take it. At the time I was told it would be used for a couple of years and, with luck, the tumour would atrophy and the problem would disappear.

But 15 years after that first prescription, with no tumour atrophy, no monitoring, and no change in prescription, I casually read the leaflet again.

This time, the following phrases leapt out at me:
'May increase blood glucose levels'
'May cause or increase insulin resistance'
'May increase risk of diabetes'
'Regular monitoring of blood glucose recommended'
'Prolonged use may enlarge the heart.'
'Heart ultrasounds recommended every 3 years'​

I pointed these out to the doctor, and received a guilty look of horror, an immediate referral to endocrinology, an ultrasound and a firm denial that my glucose intolerance was anything to do with Cabergoline. Apparently it was because I was fat. Because I eat too much. He had obviously never heard of pituitary gland tumour effects on appetite and metabolism then...

I'm not going to play that little scenario out again with statins, thank you.
 
From my experience of GPs and statins...

1) if you report muscle problems after taking them or any side effects including getting T2 diabetes THEY should report these on the yellow caed system to the MHRA and update records...

In the last 6 years due to moving house and having multi GP practices ai have seen at least 10 GP... Told wvery single one of them I do not tolerate statins. Not one has updated my medical records OR informed MHRA on the yellow card system that GPs should use....

I have asked on a form for my notes to be fully reviewed and for me to review them with a medical person because last year my consultant (i have copy of the letter) wrote to my GP clearly telling them I was intolerant to statins... Now that I have access to my medical records on line ai know this note was not correctly actioned..

2) how many people actually take the time out to check their GP reports side effects to any drugs?

3) how many patients don't bother to report. It is so eady to do online.

Unless GPs start reporting and recording statin side effects or any side effects properly or patients then its always going to be biased in favour of the drug companies.

If users of Metformin reported diaorhhea etc and the GPs actioned it properly it would have been banned by now and just the SR being available.

If patients have side effects to sny tablet or medical equipment it is imperative they are reported. AND your files updated.
 
I got to the point where it didn't matter how much research I read, it only served to confuse me more and more. All I really knew was how it affected me and I know it doesn't affect everyone in the same way, possibly because they take a lower dose, possibly because they take a different brand and possibly because they are one of the 40% of people who the drug doesn't help anyway.

There are alternative medications, for example ezetimibe (Zetia), which may be prescribed with statins for a better result.

I think if I was just about to be prescribed statins I would give it a whirl, but any sign of the well documented side effects that even the NHS recognise, I'd have to have a quiet word with my GP.

I might also be cheeky and ask my GP if she would take them or prescribe them to a relative or friend and is she willing to guarantee 100% that I would never experience a CV event, and put it in writing.

I think the other interesting thing when these drugs are being prescribed is that they never check to see how "clogged up" your arteries are anyway.
 
Totally support the comments on reporting.

Just had some correspondence with someone who got diabetic diagnosis after statins or 4 months. Whole saga sounds horrible. And another friend (female) being pressured into statins (no benefit for women).

I've followed the Dr Rory Collins and co. correspondence-plus etc in the BMJ. He tried to run the BMJ into a ditch (whilst deliberately avoiding saying *anything* in writing, how convenient); but failed. I do think this man - and his team - needs to be called to account. Pfizer, Merck, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Sanofi...
 
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.…