Statins. What happens if I don't take them?

viviennem

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,140
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Other
Dislikes
Football. Bad manners.
HMG = Her Majesty's Government, Pac. I wonder if she takes them? Or Phil the Greek?

Viv 8)
 

Pac

Member
Messages
13
OMG No!

Thanks Viv

So our 'wonderful' government is lining the pockets of our GP's, to ensure the pockets of the drug companies are well and truly lined to the extent of millions if not billions of £s; for producing tablets to reduce levels of cholesterol with the aim of reducing heart attacks, even though cholesterol doesn't cause heart attacks, BUT IS NEEDED to carry out other important processes within the body; thereby ensuring that god knows how many people are being injured one way or another by statins, sometimes irrevocably, and also ensuring there is much less money available to provide many other needed treatments or services that people are being denied.

Does anyone know how much bonus GPs receive per patient with cholesterol under 5, and do they receive it even if patients' natural cholesterol levels are under 5?

It would now appear that diabetes isn't necessarily a progressive disease, even though it has appeared to be so because of the lack of appropriate support, treatment and care available. However, because there can be such serious consequences if left to run its course, I now wonder how much it would cost to make testing strips available for all who seriously wish to attempt to control their diabetes?

I also wonder, i.e. if Kendrick is correct in his proposal that heart attacks, diabetes, and other medical conditions are caused by stress, to what extent can the skulduggery of HMG, and MPs, and newspapers/media, and bankers, and the police, and the legal profession, and councils, and various other statutory services, and greedy big businesses, etc. etc., be held responsible for the epidemic levels of heart disease and diabetes prevalent in this country.

Not sure about "she" or "Phil" though, but I guess the absence of worry about whether they will be able to achieve the basic necessities of life, and the stability of their ritualistic lives provides somewhat of a protective factor for them against stress.

Pac
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
Dougie22 said:
I find it very difficult to disagree with my (overbearing) GP on this, given the national guidelines she is working to and my extremely high reading but, so far, I've stuck to my guns.
This is the hardest part for me too. The constant battles every time I'm there. In the US they're required by 'some insurance guideline with Managed Care plans' to get all diabetics on statins. We're considered STAGE 2 prevention (as if we'd already had one heart attack regardless of our level of BG control currently). Most of the newer research shows we're NOT Stage 2 prevention.

One sensible guideline I've read -- is to have something called a VAP test. It's a blood test that differentiates between the 'fluffy' cholesterol parts of your LDL cholesterol and the 'dense small' particles that really are the particles that stick to the artery walls. That test and a C-REactive Protein which shows the level of heart inflammation in the body together tell the picture of whether a statin is a good bet. If your CRP is above 1.0 (and you haven't a recent internal issue like gall bladder problems, etc) and your VAP shows equal A/B particles or more B (dense) particles than A -- then statins, despite their potential side effects are an important 'must try' for you. If however your particle size is more 'A' weighted on the scale in the VAP test and your CRP shows levels at or under 1.0 -- even as a diabetic you can steer away from the statins - in my humble informed view..

But the 'fights with the GP' who wants to paint with a broad brush are at times 'demeaning'.. :?
 

viviennem

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,140
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Other
Dislikes
Football. Bad manners.
Two Googles for you - 'Duane Graveline' and 'Stephanie Seneff'. Make up your own minds about what they say - I couldn't possibly comment! :wink:

Viv 8)
 

clearviews

Well-Known Member
Messages
389
Dislikes
Arrogance, sarcasm and liars
[quote="viviennem" 'Duane Graveline' and 'Stephanie Seneff' :wink:

Viv 8)[/quote]

Oh dear Viv! Makes my Lipitor journey sound piddling by comparison. On dx a diabetic tends to get put on various meds. I decided I wanted off of as many meds as I could and failed to note the dissappearance of nasty side effects as I slowly eliminated the meds. Trouble was I didn't even know I was experiencing side effects as I simply put these happening things down to ........whatever.
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
clearviews said:
viviennem said:
'Duane Graveline' and 'Stephanie Seneff' :wink:
Viv 8)
Oh dear Viv! Makes my Lipitor journey sound piddling by comparison. On dx a diabetic tends to get put on various meds. I decided I wanted off of as many meds as I could and failed to note the dissappearance of nasty side effects as I slowly eliminated the meds. Trouble was I didn't even know I was experiencing side effects as I simply put these happening things down to ........whatever.
That's probably the most scary aspect of all of this and the part the doctors never tell you.... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog CAN BE 'permanent', for some, if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. :shock:

My father - like so many men and women of the WorldWar2 generation is/are just dutiful followers of whatever their doctors say. They don't ask questions -- most of them. My father has been on statins for 5-6 years now and turned 85 today. About 5.5 years ago he started getting very weak in his legs. Just 'weakness' and discomfort (classic statin side effect). He went from cane to walker within a year.. When I told him it was the statin a year ago -- he went off them for 2 weeks -- noticed no difference and pompously (my father's way) informed me it wasn't the statin.. Of course -- the damage caused by the statin all those years ago is now permanent. My heart aches that it was avoidable. Our docs will never admit this. And it's such a tragedy. He is in otherwise 'perfect health' for 85. He has no damage or arthritis in his hips or knees of any kind. Simply this 'weakness' as he describes it. Muscle degradation -- again -- classic statin side effect stuff..

So take them 'at your own risk'. If you get ANY brain fog or muscle weakness in extremities -- I hear it IS VERY noticeable (as opposed to simple 'older aged aches and pains') notify your doctor and ask to stop immediately. We're not doctors here so I'm not telling you to do ANYTHING. But tell your doctor immediately.

Chiropractors' and Osteopaths' offices are full of people whose main muscle problems are statin related. USE WITH CAUTION..

Above post edited to be clearer that only SOME can get permanent damage from the side effects of a statin if they don't catch it quickly.
 

pianoman

Well-Known Member
Messages
332
NewdestinyX said:
... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. ...
Seriously? Can you back that statement up with proof? I could see how some side-effects may be permanent in some people but surely what you say is hype? I'm not a fan of statins and I agree that they are grossly over-prescribed but please let's not resort to scaremongering to try to make a point.
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
pianoman said:
NewdestinyX said:
... The fact is -- the 'most dangerous' aspect of statins - is that the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts. ...
Seriously? Can you back that statement up with proof? I could see how some side-effects may be permanent in some people but surely what you say is hype? I'm not a fan of statins and I agree that they are grossly over-prescribed but please let's not resort to scaremongering to try to make a point.
I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.
 

pianoman

Well-Known Member
Messages
332
NewdestinyX said:
I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.
I didn't ask you about "backing up" your statement with "proof" I asked about backing up with proof -- literally NOT figuratively. And if you only meant "some" people I'm not clear what you now intend to prove? I accept that what you suggest may be true for some people... what I was balking at was your strong assertion that it was true for everyone. :shock:
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
pianoman said:
NewdestinyX said:
I'm only talking about 'some' people. In this case my father. A wonderful fellow at another forum I read posted a lot of this 'proof' you ask for. I'm recalling his data. I'll go look for that data. It does indeed deserve some 'backing up' - to be sure. Good challenge.
I didn't ask you about "backing up" your statement with "proof" I asked about backing up with proof -- literally NOT figuratively. And if you only meant "some" people I'm not clear what you now intend to prove? I accept that what you suggest may be true for some people... what I was balking at was your strong assertion that it was true for everyone. :shock:
There is nothing in the prose of my statement that implies, even remotely, 'everyone'. You've simply misread. Since that's the case - then we agree: that for SOME people - the side effects can be permanent IF they don't come off the drug quickly after the symptoms appear. That's what I believe my paragraph said. I've read it again several times. It does not imply 'everyone' even in the slightest. If you'd like to take a crack at a reword, Pianoman - have at it. I'll be happy to edit my post.
 

viviennem

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,140
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Other
Dislikes
Football. Bad manners.
"Spacedoc" is Duane Graveline, whom I suggested people Google for in an earlier post. His experience was: - bad muscle and brain fog side effects when first taking statins; came off them and everything cleared up; went back on to another brand and back came the brain fog and the muscle weakness. His damage was not permanent. He's been researching them ever since.

There is a caveat, though - not everyone gets those, or indeed any, side effects.

Viv 8)
 

viviennem

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,140
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Other
Dislikes
Football. Bad manners.
In your original post about side-effects, Grant, you made the following statement:

. . . the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.

I agree with you that your post did not imply that everyone gets statin side effects; but the sentence above does imply that the myopathy and brain fog will be permanent in everyone who gets them if they don't stop the statins in the first 2 - 4 weeks.

This is not what happened to Duane Graveline and not what happened to me - though I didn't get the brain fog.

Viv 8)
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
viviennem said:
In your original post about side-effects, Grant, you made the following statement:

. . . the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog are 'permanent' if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.

I agree with you that your post did not imply that everyone gets statin side effects; but the sentence above does imply that the myopathy and brain fog will be permanent in everyone who gets them if they don't stop the statins in the first 2 - 4 weeks.

This is not what happened to Duane Graveline and not what happened to me - though I didn't get the brain fog.

Viv 8)
AH!! I see the 'imprecise nature' of my statement. Thanks Viv and Pianoman.. I have edited my post to read..
the 'side effects' you get - specifically the muscle aches and weakness and the brain fog CAN BE 'permanent', for some, if the med is not stopped in the first 2-4 weeks after usage starts.
 

NewdestinyX

Well-Known Member
Messages
205
viviennem said:
"Spacedoc" is Duane Graveline, whom I suggested people Google for in an earlier post. His experience was: - bad muscle and brain fog side effects when first taking statins; came off them and everything cleared up; went back on to another brand and back came the brain fog and the muscle weakness. His damage was not permanent. He's been researching them ever since.

There is a caveat, though - not everyone gets those, or indeed any, side effects.

Viv 8)
Ah. Okay. Dr Graveline is SpaceDoc..

Here's an article that speaks more to my point:
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-manage ... blood-test
Pertinent clip:
July 6, 2009 - Statin users with prolonged statin-related muscle pain may also experience muscle damage, even when a blood test used to identify muscle injury is normal, new research shows.

Studies suggest that between 10% and 15% of patients who take cholesterol-lowering statin drugs like Crestor, Lipitor, Lescol, Mevacor, Zocor, and Pravachol experience muscle pain as a side effect of treatment.

Most do not end up with muscle damage, and a simple blood test is routinely performed to identify patients who do.

But the new study suggests the test for elevated levels of an enzyme associated with muscle injury, known as creatine phosphokinase or CPK, may be less accurate than widely believed.

“The patients in our study were unusual in that they had experienced weeks to months of persistent muscle problems,” Richard H. Karas, MD, PhD, tells WebMD. “We found that these patients can have evidence of microscopic damage to their muscles even with a normal CPK.”
WebMD is usually a solid source on these issue and use peer-reviewed studies to back their conclusions.
 

HpprKM

Well-Known Member
Messages
837
Dislikes
Self absorbed and rude people! Motorists who are oblivious to the rest of the world, and really don't give a ****!
Hi Dillinger, I have a post on Statins and Cholesterol where I am saying my GP is so persistent on the subject, I like her very much but this may come to blows :lolno: :lolno: I one saw a programme, Panorama or similar about statins long before I thought I would be having to take them and it was quite horrific, since then I have read nothing but poor reviews, but I find it hard to keep refusing my GP who practically begged me to take them at my last review. I have received information that natural alternatives can help, and by golly I am to try them. Having said all of that I have now come across your post earlier this year, and where I was hesitant I am really quite emphatic that I do not wish to take them, I have such a strong feeling that I should not be taking them, maybe I am just being a bit neurotic, but I am still going to try my hardest to find an alternative to lower my 5.6 level!

Dillinger said:
Hi,

I'm not convinced by statin use, I used to take them but got muscle cramps and other difficulties (including occasional problems swallowing :shock: :evil: ) and so have stopped taking them.

They will lower your cholesterol levels, but your levels are lower than the national average anyway. Your GP will be rewarded for getting you to take statins so they do have an inducement to suggest you do. Statins will slightly reduce your risk of cardiovascular events, but not to the extent that getting excellent HbA1c's would (i.e. <6.5).

Statins are huge business and so, alas as always, you have to follow the money; side effects are routinely ignored or discounted by doctors because the literature doesn't focus on them, and the benefits are shamelessly massaged by drug companies. For instance did you know that if you are a woman and you take a statin your life expectancy will not increase by 1 day :!: . Women may be very slightly less likely to die from a heart attack, but they won't live any longer at all. It's like saying "Do you want to take a pill with a number of side effects (that we won't acknowledge) that will mean that you won't get hit by a red bus, but a blue bus?".

Here is a little article denouncing statin use http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/statin.pdf

If you are really interested google Dr. Malcolm Kendrick who wrote a very convincing book about why statins are just smoke and mirrors (The Great Cholesterol Con), there are many other anti-statin books too. I found this link by Kendrick which speaks for itself http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE

This is another very interesting bit of research on heart attacks in Type 2's - note the statement on 'lipid lowering drugs' - "Forty-seven percent of those who had heart attacks and 47% of those who did not have heart attacks were on lipid lowering drugs, i.e. statins. These drugs apparently made no difference."

http://diabetesupdate.blogspot.com/2009 ... s-and.html

But you wouldn't hear about any of this from your GP as they pretty much all believe that statins are the magic bullets in the 'war on heart disease'.

Dillinger

With regard to the heart attacks, I had a very dear and close friend who died quite suddenly in June, he was seemingly fit, ate and lived a healthy life style, played golf, went to the gym, did tons of walking - and he had a stroke right out of the blue! I do not know what his cholesterol level was, but I know he used to attend a GP for regular check ups and he never mentioned any problems, and he was not diabetic, so I guess one just never knows!
 

Dillinger

Well-Known Member
Messages
1,207
Type of diabetes
Type 1
Treatment type
Insulin
Dislikes
Celery.
Hello HpprKM,

This is quite spooky - I haven't posted anything on this site for a long time but just checked in to see what was going on and had a look at this thread and as I was reading it you re-posted an earlier post by me..!

I don't think it pays to be 'professionally cynical' and I hope I don't come across like that; our doctors and health care people are trying their best to help us, but sometimes the anecdotal evidence (as well as the studies in the case of statins) goes against what they are saying.

Also keep in mind that drug companies are in this business for pure profit motives; they don't really care whether you have side effects (unless it hurts their bottom line). In the news recently I've read that GlaxoSmithKline has preliminarily agreed to a $3 billion settlement over the sales and marketing practices of several of its drugs, including the diabetes drug Avandia. As part of that it was alleged that GSK spent 11 years covering up trial data that showed Avandia was a risky drug for the heart; the company not only hid negative study data, but also manipulated study data to fit their agenda. So how do you think they might behave in relation to the much more valuable statin market?

I don't want to go on and on about statins; many on here take them without problem or worry but it's just something I don't want to do.

I think in particular that link from my earlier post to the pdf which details absolute/relative risk is very informative. In particular how it highlights that the statement 'statins will reduce your risk of heart disease by 50%' is actually a statement about the relative risk with the absolute risk going from (about) 4% to 2%.

Best

Dillinger
 

HpprKM

Well-Known Member
Messages
837
Dislikes
Self absorbed and rude people! Motorists who are oblivious to the rest of the world, and really don't give a ****!
Dillinger, well yes that was kind of spooky, I also have a deep routed feeling that I do not want to take them in fact the horror stories are really alarming, saying they are 'stories', many are actually statistics. Now admittedly there are some arguable benefits, and some people say they are alive because of them. But like yourself, I do not wish to take them - not for a while at least. Another member has suggested trying flaxseed which I purchased today from Holland and Barrett, rather try a natural alternative first before I am pushed down the statin route, though GP will not be impressed :? :cry:
 

carty

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,379
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
At my first visit to the GP after my dx as a type 2 DB there was a prescription for statins waiting for me . When I asked if I could stop taking them if my chol came down I got no answer and a change of subject so I went home and did lots of research and decided to try other ways of lowering the chol and I have never taken the statins and lowered from 6.9 to 4.5
CAROL