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

Type 2 STATINS - Side Effects and Pros and Cons of Taking Them

Thanks will do although I did have the bowl cancer screening late last year and was all clear.
 
Dark Horse said:
For those who are interested in the legal nitty-gritty of the case, there is a lot of detail here:- https://www.casemine.com/judgement/uk/62337fd3b50db9e904de3ac8
Click to expand...


It appears that the court case if it goes ahead will not reinvent the wheel. It is a question of semantics only. Person A wrote a press release as a statement of fact, but referred to statin deniers wthut mentioning names. Then Person B wrote an editorial that linked names to the article by A. The court is being asked to decide 2 points - (1) If A article is iread on its own then no one is defamed. (2) If B is read alone then would an average reader know that it was an opinion piece and that the comments made regarding the complainants behaviour was opinion and not fact.

So you can call someone a liar provided it is a personal opinion. The court will not be discussing statins at all, or whether the claims made for them are valid. The court will not be determining if either of the complainants actually lied or not - it is irrelevant to the case.
 
As an older woman I would never take statins until I was shown clinical evidence that lowering cholesterol is beneficial to me. As far as I know there has never been any such evidence. As far as I understand it, older women need slightly higher cholesterol and our clever bodies produce it for us.
 
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/article-abstract/2790055

Meta analysis points out that statins do not seem to prevent much heart disease and do not cause anyone to live longer (you change the cause of death but not the date it seems).
We know they do reduce ldl but if they don't prevent much heart disease (just over 1 in 100 patients are prevented from having a heart attack if they statin ate for a number of years) then perhaps LDL C has go ver little to do with heart disease?
The Clot Thickens (Dr Malcolm McKendrick) is a good read on this topic.
Ether way if you are being told to get a statin do ask about numbers needed to treat which puts the absolute risk/benefits into perspective IMO and remember the real damage to your arteries is coming from elevated glucose and insulin levesl, high blood pressure, smoking, sickle cell etc. NOT cheese.
 
BRIAN IN BLACKPOOL said:
Take statins or you will end up with heart disease and that’s not nice. Just find the right ones for you
Click to expand...
My GP and I went through the list of statins from top to bottom. I had 2 hospital admissions with symptoms of a stroke, but which resolved immediately I stopped the statins. My GP promptly wrote up in my notes " allergic to statins" and filled in yellow cards for me.

My heart issues are as a direct result of me being a heavy smoler and a drinker. I am neither now, and I remain statin free.

Someone did work out that the average male person taking max dose of Atorvastatin for something like 10 years solid may actually gain a day or so of extended life. The statistics show that women doing the same have less than a day extra. The only group that may possibly benefit are those who have already suffered cardiac events, and the evidence is actually quite weak even then.

Studies on post mortem examinations following a death due to CVD were not actually associated with high LDL.

The other thing that strikes me is that atherosclerosis takes years and years to build up. Statins are new science, and have not been around long enough to provide evidence that prolonged use of statins is prophylactic i.e. preventative. They certainly do not cure atherosclerosis once you have it.
 
 


I take Ezetimibe as a statin alternative.
 
Holisticrmp said:
I take Ezetimibe as a statin alternative.
Click to expand...
This is what I did for a while until I googled Dr Google about the side effects of ezetimibe. I did find I tolerated it better than statins, but it started giving me several of the listed bad effects, so I have now stopped it.
 
As I understand it, there is a great deal of pressure for patients in certain groups to be on Statins, and more importantly is your cholesterol result overall or split into the good and bad cholesterol as I gather there are two types
 
I was put onto Atorvastatin and Metformin at diagnosis - in a few weeks I was suicidal. It took 18 months for all the aches and pains to stop - I spent hours relearning all my songs, and I still cannot play my guitar, though I have given up trying now, I must confess. After 5 years my confidence has still not returned and I always have the words on hand to check what I sing.
I was thinking that I'd need to move into a care home until it dawned on me that it was the tablets.
Since then I have explained to the GPs who called to persuade me to take them again that it was of no interest to me to stay alive barely able to creep about the house and unable to do anything in the way of crafts or music, and eventually they stopped calling.
 
I take Atorvastatin after I had my stroke in 2016, and haven't had any side effects to speak of, I am also on clopidogrel too, my lipid profiles remain good and were good before the stroke. I have asked if I can come off them, but due to having high blood pressure I have been told to stay on these drugs.
 
That does not make sense. Statins do nothing to reduce high blood pressure. They simply reduce LDL cholesterol production by the liver. They inhibit a particular enzyme in the body. Sadly this same enzyme is also used to make other processes work, so those too are reduced. There seems to be little research into which processes are affected, or if this reduction across the board has any other effect either beneficial or detrimental.

Statins are also claimed to increase HDL but I have not seen any studies that actually demonstrates this. Also HDL is claimed to remove plaque from arteries, but it is actually described as "removimg fat from the arteries" which is not the same thing. The inference is that it reduces plaque, but all HDL does is capture used LDL and return it to the liver for recycling. It does little to remove plaque. A large component of plaque is calcium, and hardened arteries are 'calcined'. This is not treated by statins,

The statin makers also claim that statins reduce Trigs. They also imply that trigs are linked to liver disease, heart disease, and diabetes. The implication is that taking statins reduces these diseases, but the link could actually go the other way IMO. They do not link Trigs to plaque, which is what the more recent research is showing to be a causative factor. Experiences reported here frequently is that following a low carb diet does also reduce Trigs quite successfully.

Note: Trigs is the blood test result which is actually broken or damaged LDL that is residue that HDL cannot collect for recycling. It is not actually triglycerides, which are the cargo carried by cholesterol inside the bubble of LDL or HDL. Statins reduce this latter triglycerides by not creating LDL.

https://www.heartuk.org.uk/getting-treatment/statins
 
From one Cardiologist to another?
https://doctoraseem.com/tag/a-statin-free-life/

And yes he has a vested interest in this POV. He has a book to promote.

And here is some recent research
https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroo...-benefits-of-statins-may-be-marginal-at-best/

It must be remembered that statin trials were all executed and funded by the manufaturers, they hold the data from the trials and refuse to release it for independant analysis, and use the relative risk method of analysis which exagerates any small point of significance to the lofty heights of newsreel. The conclusions you read are the ones they want you to read.
 
Last edited:

There are plenty of cardiologists who would disagree with him though so choose your cardiologist wisely..
Have you asked hm recently if he has changed his opinion?

BrianDoc said:
dropping my total cholesterol from over 6 to under 4.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately 'total cholesterol" is a pretty meaningless measurement, current thought is that the Trig/HDL ratio is more important as a predictor of possible future issues. If you haven't had a full lipid panel done after a 12-14 hour water fast then maybe ask for one next time you get tested.
 
I have noted three occasions on Twitter where people claiming an association with cardiology have stated that over half their patients have below average cholesterol levels, but that to state the obvious in a professional setting would mean their credibility and competence would be questioned.
 
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.…