Statins - If you got straight trousers they'll give you flares

desidiabulum said:

I am not ‘anti-statin’. I take them for my heart condition. I am genuinely agnostic on the cholesterol issue. I see no point in a pro/anti approach. But there is nothing wrong with a healthy and light-hearted scepticism when it comes to the public debate on statins and the claims made for their efficacy, which is deeply politicized at the moment. And one might ponder why an association noted in a ‘preliminary’ retrospective and observational study, which might ‘potentially’ lead towards a clinical trial ‘in 10 to 15 years’, is headline news, and that the word ‘statins’ is so prominent in that headline.

Click to expand...

Although the article that Dillinger has linked to is in today's Telegraph the story itself has been around since 2012/13, if you do a Google search it will say as much

As you say it's good to debate, I was reading that something like 7 million people in the UK are on statins so your not alone by any means, many on the forum also take them.

noblehead said:

No comment Zand

Seriously though, Ctherineherub makes a great point in her post, both Dillinger, Phoenix and myself were just discussing the beneficial effects of taking bp drugs ending in 'prill' just a couple of weeks ago, they not only help lower bp but are said to help prevent and treat Nephropathy (diabetic kidney disease) and Dillinger was saying that this was the reason why he takes Lisinopril.

There's nothing wrong with taking preventative medicine and if statins are proven to reduce the chances of developing breast cancer then this can only be seen as a good thing, my wife's family have a history of breast cancer and her aunty died from it and her daughter had her breasts removed as a precautionary measure, the family carry a cancer gene and her cousin was found to be carry the gene that killed her mother, my wife had to be tested to see if she was carrying it but thankfully she doesn't.

I don't take statins myself but have seen first-hand that they do what they say, my eldest brother was diagnosed with high cholesterol with a TC of 9+, he went on Sim and brought his levels down to below 4 in a matter of months, my mum was also on a statin and both suffered no side-effects, if my own cholesterol was high I would now take them without question, only then would I know if I would suffer side-effects or not.

Click to expand...

Ramipril - yes I understand that these 3 forum members who I like and respect take these drugs to protect themselves from Nephropathy. I have had to re-think my view on this because of the 3 of you, but as it stands at the moment, my own experience is still most valid to me. I was given blood pressure tablets because my bp got horrendously high because my weight had just tipped into the morbidly obese section of the weight chart. My kidney function was down already and I read on the leaflet inside the pack of drugs that kidneys could be harmed by Ramipril. Added to that I got a cough which affected my throat and made me lose my voice completely (I often got laryngitis) So I asked to change tablets. Now what I really needed was for someone to say LCHF to me because then the problem would have been solved, I would have lost the weight and my blood pressure would have fallen. I was surprised to find that this drug actually protects from Nephropathy. I accept it does because the 3 of you say it does. As I said earlier I was not diabetic at the time so didn't take note of anything relevant specifically to diabetics.

My mother's family also have a history of cancer, so this is a topic which concerns me. My grandmother had breast cancer, though she died of a stroke. An Auntie died of breast cancer, another of bowel cancer, another of cervical cancer. My mother died of multiple myeloma. Now with breast cancer we were told for years to have mammograms for early detection. Now there's evidence that mammograms often don't detect the worst cancers and even make them grow more quickly. They do detect the milder ones which may not even need removing, so survival rate figures are distorted. Yet it was medical 'fact' that mammograms were a good idea. As I said I am cynical and when I read this the thought I had was that many women are refusing statins and they need encouragement to take them. Would I take a drug that was specifically developed to protect from breast cancer? Probably. Would I take statins to protect myself from breast cancer? No, they are known to damage muscles and the heart is a muscle also. I haven't worked so hard to get my heart fit and well again only to take a drug that could harm it.

When my heart was in AF I chose to have shocks to put it back into rhythm. A man I know with the same problem chose to go down the drugs route. He was a keen rugby player. After 2 years we were both fine. Then my heart went back into AF again. His had never been out of it and was getting progressively worse. After more shocks and an operation, my heart is better. His is worse and he can't lift an arm because of muscle damage from the statins which were supposed to protect his heart. He can't do any physical work because he is too weak. So I too have seen first hand what statins can do. Yes they say a TC of 9+ is far too high. Are they right? Or are we all different? Do some simply have higher levels than others? I am not convinced that we should be messing around lowering cholesterol at all.

Dillinger said:

@zand, that was why I posted that Lisinopril thing; I'm not sure about it. The study Phoenix gave suggested that it had a 30% benefit. That's not much. Personally I think I have gastric side effects from it.

My main issue is if I'm being lied to about one lifetime drug then why not another?

Best

Dillinger

Click to expand...

I should have re-read the original thread before posting! I didn't read it very carefully first time round because I had no intention of taking an additonal bp tablet anyway. I have looked at it again now and understand what each of you were saying. Thank you for the explanation. Next time I'll read the posts properly!

Pipp said:

I only recently found out that the BP drug Lisinopril that I had been taking for 20+ years was causing significant, debilitating delayed allergic reactions to all sorts of different stuff. As it was delayed reaction it was impossible to work out what I was allergic to. This has caused permanent changes to my blood which is irreversible.
Does this make me want to go on a crusade against the 'pril' medication? No, as without it I could have been dead long ago. Newer meds now lower my BP to an acceptable level.I don't like taking meds, but have to accept there are risks involved but as long as the benefit outweighs the risk then I am prepared to chance it.

What I am really trying to say is that we all have our preferences, and because diabetes is so diverse we each have to find our way through. if we are too forceful in our acceptance or condemnation of a particular approach we are not going to progress knowledge. there is no single answer or solution to suit all.

Click to expand...

Good post Pipp and fully agree with what you said in your last paragraph.

Zand, not experienced the cough with Ramipril although it is stated that this is one of the major side-effects of taking the drug. I didn't start on Ramipril to protect my kidneys from Nephropathy, I started on it after being diagnosed with diabetic retinopathy, although my bp was below normal it was thought that it would be beneficial to get my bp even lower to protect my eyes from further damage.

The kidney protecting benefits is an added bonus although my kidneys have always been fine.

Yes @noblehead that's the main difference between us....my kidneys weren't fine before I started the drug so that's why the prospect of any further kidney damage worried me. If yours had started to be adversely affected by Ramipril, it would have been easy enough to stop taking the drug before any significant damage had been done. As you say the benefits to your kidneys are a bonus to you as you are taking the drug for other reasons anyway.

OK, we seem to be agreeing on something again, time to leave before I get myself into another argument.

I'm confused, I'm just over the threshold for both type 2 diabetes and cholesterol, but immediately they started me on metphormine and statins. I started the metphormine 500mg slow release, as yet I havent taken statins. My mother is type 2 diabetic and I was insulin intolerant due to PCOS. These two factors made me high risk genetic predisposition I'm afraid. There is heart disease on my father's side of the family, I think the doctors have jumped the gun...I haven't been offered any dietary advise at all from the medical professionals, merely prescribed pills. I realize I need to take more care of my health now I have OFS....over forty syndrome but surely I shouldn't be written off just yet?