Statins Increase for diabetics??

There will be bins full. You might get prescribed them but you don't have to take them.

There won't be any argument with my GP. If she wants me to have that amount of leg muscle pain, poor sleep and brain fog again then she had better start thinking of putting me on the sick. I'm 63 and technically should still be working, I have retired early because I am lucky to have a wife who loves working and always have her dinner ready when she gets home, etc etc etc. I do not claim benefits despite being unemployed.

Also I would expect a written guarantee from the NHS that taking statins will prevent me from ever suffering a cardiovascular event.

I saw the Daily Fail headline the other day was saying that statins help reduce the risk of cancer by 50%. Where do they get that from?

graj0 said:

There won't be any argument with my GP. If she wants me to have that amount of leg muscle pain, poor sleep and brain fog again then she had better start thinking of putting me on the sick. I'm 63 and technically should still be working, I have retired early because I am lucky to have a wife who loves working and always have her dinner ready when she gets home, etc etc etc. I do not claim benefits despite being unemployed.

Also I would expect a written guarantee from the NHS that taking statins will prevent me from ever suffering a cardiovascular event.

I saw the Daily Fail headline the other day was saying that statins help reduce the risk of cancer by 50%. Where do they get that from?

Click to expand...

There have been some interesting dissections of this cancer/statins thing around the blogosphere - Dr Kendrick and George Henderson included:

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/06/03/statins-and-cancer/
http://hopefulgeranium.blogspot.com.au/2015/06/statins-and-cancer-stories-stupidest.html

Laughs I am prescribed them but have stopped taking them now for weeks I did mean to tell the Doctor/Nurse when i went to see them but keep forgetting

Indy51 said:

There have been some interesting dissections of this cancer/statins thing around the blogosphere - Dr Kendrick and George Henderson included:

Click to expand...

Thanks Indy,

in the interest of fair play I should have looked further as you did. I just get overwhelmed by the **** that's printed in newspapers and I haven't the time to check everything I'm told. I've unfriended a few FB friends because they insisted on sharing all sorts of **** that is just plain wrong and I got fed up with checking it all.

I like Kendrick and Henderson, and their explanations are fairly simple so I can understand without getting a headache. LOL

After taking 20mg statins for a couple of years without any issues I suffered a heart attack, then prescribed 80mg ! All fine for a year then awful shoulder pain & muscle ache in the same side, left arm.

Doctor says frozen shoulder, I might agree with that but the muscle pain is due to the statins, how do I know ? Stop the statin & the muscle pain goes away.

How can medical ethics allow extra pay for prescribing statins ? This is wide open to abuse, there's more to this than the public know about.

Statins didn't prevent my heart attack.

I'm preparing myself for getting pressure from my GP to take statins. I had blood tests including lipid profile done 6 weeks after giving birth at the request of my hospital diabetes team within days I had a request from my GP to see them. My diabetes team have said no need for statins and will redo tests after a while. It annoyed me that the letter from the GP already mentioned statins before I've even seen them.

My levels are all high but I understand that is to be expected post-pregnancy and possibly through the duration of breastfeeding as breastmilk is high in cholesterol.

At least I can't take them whilst breastfeeding - I intend feeding this one for at least a year like I did my first.

hels said:

At least I can't take them whilst breastfeeding - I intend feeding this one for at least a year like I did my first.

Click to expand...

I find it unconscionable that they are pushing statins on women of child bearing age - what if you get pregnant while taking them?

http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/clinica...o-more-patients/20008226.article#.VXFmr2BhPFI

This comment is worth reading,

Have two thirds of GPs actually read the NICE guidance? (or just the headlines from the media?). NICE state that patients should be 'offered' a statin - to allow a discussion of the risks and benefits to take place and enable the patient to make an informed decision. It also emphasises that lifestyle issues should be addressed initially, with a recalculation of the CV risk and only then if the risk is greater than 10% should a statin be offered. Some people will get side effects with statins, but the majority do not and why should those that have no ill effects from taking statins not gain the possible benefits? GPs appear to only remember the last patient with statin side effects - not the majority that take them without any problems.

Indy51 said:

I find in unconscionable that they are pushing statins on women of child bearing age - what if you get pregnant while taking them?

Click to expand...

I haven't seen them yet so I am hoping they won't but was alarmed that they mentioned them in the letter. It'll be a big NO from me if they try to prescribe them.

I believe Dr Kendrick thinks that the reason cholesterol raises is actually to protect the body against a cardiac event.

dawnmc said:

I believe Dr Kendrick thinks that the reason cholesterol raises is actually to protect the body against a cardiac event.

Click to expand...

Yes, his books are worth a read and imply from his research of the research that the body needs the cholesterol and that as you age the cholesterol increase may well be part of the body's repair mechanism. His view as a GP is that lowering cholesterol may well increase risks of heart problems not reduce them.The so-called data that links statins to reduce heart events has been shown to be invalid

I had the usual heated debate with my GP regarding statins 12 months ago. Whilst urging me to take them, she didn't insist and was quite happy to prescribe a low dose aspirin "to keep the blood flowing" instead of the statin. Having said all that, my Q-risk was hovering around the 20% mark but my cholesterol/lipid levels were perfect as was my BP. I was only that high a risk because of my diabetes diagnosis coupled with my age, which double the risk on the Q-risk calculator, and I can't do a thing to alter that.

Many GPs get cross with patients that look stuff up on the Internet. They are concerned that they are not trained to filter information correctly. Unfortunately the tend to filter it differently to GPs.

catherinecherub said:

Some people will get side effects with statins, but the majority do not and why should those that have no ill effects from taking statins not gain the possible benefits?

Click to expand...

Nobody would prevent those that have no side effects from taking them and there aren't really any real figures on who gets side effects and who doesn't, especially when Professor Collins refuses to release the data obtained from pharmaceutical industry backed research. Dose makes a difference, 20 mg may be fine for people, but 80 mg could bring on the recognised side effects. It's probably unlikely that there will ever be any accurate statistics when people of my MIL's generation take the prescription and not the tablet. In her case she literally throws them down the loo as if she was taking them every day, despite my nagging her to come clean and the GP doing exactly what I predicted, increasing the dose because there was no change in her total cholesterol. In her case I have to agree with her when she says "I'm 88 and never had any heart problems, I eat healthily, I'm not overweight, never smoked, rarely drink and I still walk a mile every day and play bowls and go to keep fit, I don't really want to live that much longer, why should I be worried about my cholesterol?"
I started telling my GP about the muscle pain in about 2002, shortly after he insisted that I took Simvastatin instead of Atorvastatin because it was cheaper, that's when my problems started and like donnellysdogs, that never went into my notes, I just got a string of excuses despite the problems being recognised by the manufacturer as far back as 1990. Not only did Merck Pharmaceutical recognise it as a problem, they knew what the problem was and applied for a patent which included CoQ10 in the tablet. I'm not convinced that they would have bothered if the majority never had any problems, it was obviously serious enough for them to want to correct it. The problem then was that there was no proof that ingesting C0Q10 could replace the CoQ10 not being made by the body because of taking Statins.
The amount of information available is just too confusing for my simple brain, my decision to stop was purely to regain some quality of life, something I hadn't had for a long time.