Statins?

[Indy51]

Sorry - above Link didn’t work, try this for statin trial evidence:
https://www.wikijournalclub.org/wiki/WOSCOPS

The WOSCOPS review is coming under heavy criticism for poor methodology:
http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4915.full?ijkey=9LiJlrCCGTWhotf&keytype=ref

 

[Guzzler]

The WOSCOPS review is coming under heavy criticism for poor methodology:
http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4915.full?ijkey=9LiJlrCCGTWhotf&keytype=ref

Cardiologists, Engineers, GPs and the BMJ, they can't all be wrong. Thanks for the link, hadn't seen that one.

 

[TipTop2]

Others have not been so fortunate as you. Statin-pushers seem to want to ignore such side-effects :
https://spacedoc.com/articles/lipitor-thief-of-memory
Geoff

Hence my sentence ‘if you cannot tolerate them that’s unfortunate’ and ‘all drugs are poisons’. I read the article. Interesting. Could well be glial-cell effect along with all kinds of other mechanisms going on.
The truth is that we never know the full effects of any drug until 30-40 yrs in wide population use. It’s just hypothesis though. So far both the study data and reported S/E data show on balance benefits over risks.
Do you take paracetamol by any chance? That’s a highly dangerous drug that would likely never be licensed today. Take just 10 x 500mg of those in one sitting and you’ll likely never see the light of day again. Non-reversible liver damage. You can buy those OTC. I’m not aware of any current moves to ban paracetamol.

 

[maureen5752]

I tried atuvastin & gained weight in very short time so refuse to take as I'm not very mobile at all, so harder to get weight of, I tried sinsvastin, had terrible leg cramps & came of years ago but now diabetic was put on them again to try, got cholestrol down with help of diet but been on hflc diet & cholestrol gone up, DN said try higher dose 80 but most cant cope with it cos of pain, I tried for 2 weeks & stopped I had terrible pain & cramps in hands toes & fingers & legs. now I take 40 & pain greatly reduced. but as. Said before doctors opinion was that if I don't take I'll have high cholestrol. When my cholestrol went up I was told I must be forgetting to take!! I said I HAVE been taking them but it was obvious he thought id not been doing so. I am confused take or don't. So many for & against. We should have faith in our doctors but I don't know anymore

 

[derry60]

Regarding the research that Prof. Rory Collins keeps hidden, there was some alarming news some time ago.

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/558249/statins-expert-heart-drug-rory-collins

Some quotes from that article.

"Head researcher Prof Collins admitted he had not seen the full data on side effects.

In an email to this paper he stated that his team had assessed the effects of statins on heart disease and cancer but not other side effects such as muscle pain."

"Prof Rory Collins, whose research helped rubber stamp statins as safe, said his team will carry out a “challenging” reassessment of the evidence which will include studying all reported side effects.

Although the original research looked at the effect of statins on the heart and considered cancer risks it did not examine other side effects."

" Dr Collins, who championed the controversial drug, said the additional work was needed to convince the public that statins were safe."

The problem I have with this is that if he keeps on saying that statins are safe and yet admits he never tested them for side effects then how sound is the main research which he says he did carry out but won't let anyone see.

While there is no doubt that some in the medical profession are against Statins. I would not go much of anything that the Express reports. This is the paper that reports miracle cures for this and that, and reports that we are going to have hurricanes so bad that people are going to either be killed or seriously harmed. This paper is a sensationalist paper.

 

[derry60]

The ones that advocate carbs with every meal?
The evidence that statins are beneficial to those with risk factors is owned by the pharma companies that make and profit from them and has never been made available for independent scrutiny. Having read a lot about cholesterol and its being essential for life there is no way I'm going to mess with mine by taking a pill provided by a doctor who understands less than I do about the condition he is prescribing for.

Yes, but we cannot dismiss everything regarding the NHS. We must agree that they also do wonderful work. Statins for some yes they seem to not be able to tolerate them, but for me, I am fine with them. As for them causing T2 Diabetes, well who knows as there are many who suffer T2 without ever having taken a Statin. There are also peeps who are on Statins who have been on them for years and have not got T2.

 

[derry60]

Cardiologists, Engineers, GPs and the BMJ, they can't all be wrong. Thanks for the link, hadn't seen that one.

You will have as many against Statins in the medical profession and as many who advocate them. So really it is not a case of all being wrong.

 

[Mike d]

Hence my sentence ‘if you cannot tolerate them that’s unfortunate’ and ‘all drugs are poisons’. I read the article. Interesting. Could well be glial-cell effect along with all kinds of other mechanisms going on.
The truth is that we never know the full effects of any drug until 30-40 yrs in wide population use. It’s just hypothesis though. So far both the study data and reported S/E data show on balance benefits over risks.
Do you take paracetamol by any chance? That’s a highly dangerous drug that would likely never be licensed today. Take just 10 x 500mg of those in one sitting and you’ll likely never see the light of day again. Non-reversible liver damage. You can buy those OTC. I’m not aware of any current moves to ban paracetamol.

Staggering ... just staggering

 

[derry60]

Hence my sentence ‘if you cannot tolerate them that’s unfortunate’ and ‘all drugs are poisons’. I read the article. Interesting. Could well be glial-cell effect along with all kinds of other mechanisms going on.
The truth is that we never know the full effects of any drug until 30-40 yrs in wide population use. It’s just hypothesis though. So far both the study data and reported S/E data show on balance benefits over risks.
Do you take paracetamol by any chance? That’s a highly dangerous drug that would likely never be licensed today. Take just 10 x 500mg of those in one sitting and you’ll likely never see the light of day again. Non-reversible liver damage. You can buy those OTC. I’m not aware of any current moves to ban paracetamol.

It is the same with natural remedies Herbal medication, many comments on how dangerous they are. Every prescription from the medical profession will have a list of side effects on them if we took notice of every single one we would be beside ourselves and would never take any medications at all for fear of all of the side effects listed. I have never been a pill popper. I will suffer for ages with pain before I will even take a Panadol. I have Arthritis and Fibromyalgia but I will not take any painkillers because they make me feel sick and not well,but that is not to say that the same pills may not help somebody else who can tolerate them. Same with Statins. So yes I am agreeing with you.

 

[TipTop2]

Others have not been so fortunate as you. Statin-pushers seem to want to ignore such side-effects :
https://spacedoc.com/articles/lipitor-thief-of-memory
Geoff

‘Statin-pushers’. Well the main ‘pushers’ are now the regulatory authorities and disease associations, not big Pharma. Thank you for your super balanced argument. You quote one scientists article against 20 yrs of evidence-based research. Super stuff. That said I’m not ignoring everything that’s in yours. There may well be glial-cell activation as a pathway of a statins. That’s just how evidence with drugs (or indeed anything) evolves, through observation and vigorous debate. The problem now is that all the first and second generation statins are generic. No-ones going to do any more large-scale controlled studies in them now. We have to rely on S/E reporting and analysis in the real world. So far, the benefits still outweigh the risks on balance.

 

[wookie101]

Hi,

Reading with interest as I posted a question about statins ages ago and got some good feed back about making sure the proper LDL HDL tests were done before I started which they hadn't.

Long story short I ended up with Sepsis so had bigger fish to fry but... on reading between the lines there are medicine's for cholesterol and medicines for diabetes. If your cholesterol is high then surely you are at high risk of dying (let's not beat around the Bush with CVD's etc.,) and that needs to be tackled asap so as to get you to a healthier place and if it pushes your sugars up well for a while Dr can prescribe you something to help push them down, as it's all a balancing act.

However if you want to try and keep your cholesterol down you can eat better, and exercise some, I know it doesn't work for everyone but it does help. There are things lifestyle choices that we can make to help, Drs can also help with drugs which have their own side affects (metformin anybody...).

When I had sepsis, my diabetes sugars went thru the roof, blocking the antibiotics trying to keep me alive and basically it was the 5th lot of antibiotics that finally started to bring me back.. now that the Drs had got past the diabetes preventing treatment, we agreed to basically blast me with a high dose of meds to push my sugars right down to give me a chance to recover from the sepsis as that had to be the focus for my treatment or I could end up loss g some limbs, the diabetes was a noise in the background interfering....

So sepsis over, next focus sugars... now quite good and next cholesterol... I'm doing one thing at a time... walking, as I'm not a gym bunny, eating vegetables...(i' d rather some pies :-( ) and I've spoken with my doctor if my sugars stay as they are then reduce my diabetes drugs but if my cholesterol rises next time then I will go on statins as there is only so much I can do, but I will keep reacting and adapting as I need to, if I can't tolerate statins then ill have to do something else, what I've no idea but, there are side effects to everything, even staying in the sun...

What I'm saying is that we are all different, which is why we sometimes get side effects, sometimes not, but if you are in a danger zone, do the right thing help yourself sort whatever it is, weigh things up for yourself and you know the best place to air things (yes with your medical team) but it's actually here... to give you some support.

The above is just my opinion from my somewhat dire experience.

Last thing I'll say is be careful next time you go out for a walk because you could be stung by a bee and sometimes that's enough to kill you... swings and roundabouts, use your own measuring scales and do what works for you.

Sorry if some of the above does t make sense as felt I had to reply and doing it from my mobile...

 

[TipTop2]

It is the same with natural remedies Herbal medication, many comments on how dangerous they are. Every prescription from the medical profession will have a list of side effects on them if we took notice of every single one we would be beside ourselves and would never take any medications at all for fear of all of the side effects listed. I have never been a pill popper. I will suffer for ages with pain before I will even take a Panadol. I have Arthritis and Fibromyalgia but I will not take any painkillers because they make me feel sick and not well,but that is not to say that the same pills may not help somebody else who can tolerate them. Same with Statins. So yes I am agreeing with you.

Well said! You’re quite right. For ‘natural remedies’ read ‘untried and untested’ should watch out. That said if they work for you then good luck. The power of placebo effect is often greater than ‘active’!! If you read the PI on almost any drug you’d never take anything! I am very sorry that you suffer with pain and you find difficulty in tolerating meds. Have you been to a pain specialist? They are the real experts in pain mgmnt (which at least in my opinion is universally poorly managed) and I hope may be able to help you. Good luck.

 

[derry60]

Well said! You’re quite right. For ‘natural remedies’ read ‘untried and untested’ should watch out. That said if they work for you then good luck. The power of placebo effect is often greater than ‘active’!! If you read the PI on almost any drug you’d never take anything! I am very sorry that you suffer with pain and you find difficulty in tolerating meds. Have you been to a pain specialist? They are the real experts in pain mgmnt (which at least in my opinion is universally poorly managed) and I hope may be able to help you. Good luck.

This is it. We certainly would be scared to take anything if we went by the leaflets in the prescription boxes. We sometimes have to trust the medical profession with our health. By all means, ask questions with the doctor etc, but some here seem to want to dismiss the NHS on quite a lot of things. I went to Physio a few times and I found that rather silly lol. The exercises that they gave me, I knew that I could do myself and did not warrant the visit to the Physio. I do exercises at home. I also do meditation which I find relaxing and really does help. Gets me in to a good state of mind.

 

[TipTop2]

Cardiologists, Engineers, GPs and the BMJ, they can't all be wrong. Thanks for the link, hadn't seen that one.

The Defence Rests.....

https://www.lipid.org/sites/default/files/2-_landmark_clinical_trials-_brown.pdf

 

[bulkbiker]

Yes, but we cannot dismiss everything regarding the NHS. We must agree that they also do wonderful work. Statins for some yes they seem to not be able to tolerate them, but for me, I am fine with them. As for them causing T2 Diabetes, well who knows as there are many who suffer T2 without ever having taken a Statin. There are also peeps who are on Statins who have been on them for years and have not got T2.

I wasn't referring to the NHS as such more the various diabetes organisations around the world that advocate starchy carbs with every meal. And yes they do some great work but also are not beyond reproach and should not be considered as such.

Cholesterol is essential for life, if we start messing with it without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms (which in my opinion we don't as yet) then we are playing a very dangerous game with our bodies. One I would rather not participate in.

 

[derry60]

I wasn't referring to the NHS as such more the various diabetes organisations around the world that advocate starchy carbs with every meal. And yes they do some great work but also are not beyond reproach and should not be considered as such.

Cholesterol is essential for life, if we start messing with it without fully understanding the underlying mechanisms (which in my opinion we don't as yet) then we are playing a very dangerous game with our bodies. One I would rather not participate in.

Well you will have the same studying almost every other medication out there because they all have risks I am sure.

 

[bulkbiker]

Well you will have the same studying almost every other medication out there because they all have risks I am sure.

That's why I try not to take any.

 

[maureen5752]

@wookie101 hi hope you feel better soon. This a little if the topic but the remark about being stung by a bee is so true, many years ago my daughter then 3 sat on a wasp & had to go to hospital for treatment as they are very dangerous, this was in the Middle East & they were great, apparently wasps stings are very dangerous. We are lucky to have the NHS if it wasn't for the doctors I wouldn't be here today, I had seriouse accident 61 yrs ago. My doctor just doesn't seem to like me asking questions, it is my body I like to know what's going into it

 

[TipTop2]

The WOSCOPS review is coming under heavy criticism for poor methodology:
http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j4915.full?ijkey=9LiJlrCCGTWhotf&keytype=ref

Uhhhhhh I didn’t read anything in your referenced article about poor methodology? They refer to ‘follow-up’ period of 15 yrs but that is just what it means.....follow-up, not controlled study. Poor use of reported data perhaps but the data is accurate because the study was well-conducted. No one disputes that. They are referring to ‘relative risk reduction Vs actual RR’. Lies, damned lies and statistics.

This was a Landmark study and still holds true on the evidence. Statin S/Es are a different matter. Now we have wide-scale use in the real world in tens of millions of patients. Of course there’ll be many more (and different) S/Es reported and trends developing. On balance though the benefits still outweigh the risks of use if you already have one or two CVD risk factors.

 

[Bluetit1802]

I won't put anything chemical into my body unless I know exactly how it works, why it works, if I actually need it, what it does to organs and cells, and if it will help.