Dosage is a completely separate argument. If a user chooses to take ten paracetamol he/she know the likely outcome. Can you honestly say the same thing about statins? Do you know what the outcome of an overdose of atorvastatin is?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.
What defence? You are relying on inherently flawed data and, I might add, incomplete non biased research.
Dosage is a completely separate argument. If a user chooses to take ten paracetamol he/she know the likely outcome. Can you honestly say the same thing about statins? Do you know what the outcome of an overdose of atorvastatin is?
You are missing a key point in your argument about paracetamol. The benefits are known, the risks are known. You cannot say that for statins when the long term use IRL are unknown. It is the very foundation of cholesterol knowledge that is as yet not fully understood and yet you advocate mass medication? Honestly....Well that’s just where you’re completely wrong. Do you know how many paracetamol-related deaths throughthere are every year? Your average person has no idea how lethal they are in overdose which is why deaths occur regularly. Statins have risks in overdose too but they have been well studied and they are minor. Paracetamol over-dose is lethal and non-reversible and you can buy OTC. Do you want to regulate that or is it just statins that you’ve got in your sights for whatever reason now? Or aspirin? That’s lethal if you get a gastric bleed too. Honestly......
Did you miss yesterday's post by another member. This guy is a GP I will listen to. He doesn't have much time for your 'benefits outweighing the risk' line,or '20 yrs of evidence-based research'.‘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.
All I can say is that I have been on Statins for nearly 14 years and have no ill effect from the drug... If some people cannot tolerate them well then that is fair enough, but for people and there are many many people who can tolerate them then they are beneficial to that person. We are all different and there are many other drugs that can be said "We don't know what the long term damage is, but without the use of these drugs when they are needed, again we do not know what the risks are for not taking them.
When I say tolerate I mean if they have no ill effects. How many people are on Statins? and how many have suffered from taking them? How many have not suffered from taking them? Like I said before. Most drugs come with warnings, yet many far outweigh the dangers. Would I have had another Heart Attack without them? I will never know,but so far so goodTo say that because one can tolerate a drug then it must follow that the drug must be beneficial is a giant step. In my opinion the most important aspect to whether a patient takes a drug or not is that of informed consent and as the information or data on statin use and esp long term statin use has been manipulated then informed consent has to be taken out of the equation thus limiting a patient's choices.
I mentioned up thread (or possibly another thread) that it has been said that fewer than 5% of GPs report side effects to the relevant body. So it is left to anecdotal/observational data to determine what exactly are the numbers re side effects. The same can be said for benefits because unless or until the full role/s of cholesterol are fully understood how can we make informed choices? How can HCPs make informed choices? n=1 data is important only to the particular person involved.When I say tolerate I mean if they have no ill effects. How many people are on Statins? and how many have suffered from taking them? How many have not suffered from taking them? Like I said before. Most drugs come with warnings, yet many far outweigh the dangers. Would I have had another Heart Attack without them? I will never know,but so far so good
Maureen, a lot of people on here feel their cholesterol, at any rate triglycerides and HDL, which are now said to be the important ones, have improved since they adopted a lower carb way of eating. Personally, my GP wanted to put me on statins because of slightly high LDL, but instead I have lowered my carb intake in the hopes of also lowering my blood glucose. My last full blood test was in July and my next is scheduled for January, so I can't yet tell you what effect if any my diet may be having on my cholesterol. It is certainly lowering my bg considerably, according to the testing I am doing at home, so I am living in hopes.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
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.
post: 1608971 said:Just found this talk by Professor Sultan that seems very similar to the one I posted about yesterday. Worth watching!
'
http://www.vascular.ie/news/2017/4/10/prof-sultan-at-cice-congress-brazil-2017#pq=21Rxs5
He is not good at interviews. I have listened to radio programs where he said he had not tested statins for adverse side effects, another where he said that that he did hold pre trial tests and weeded out some people and each time I got the impression that the world would have been a better place if he mentioned all that earlier.I remember one of Michael Moseley's programmes when he interviewed Sir Rory Statin, he was just an arrogant prat I thought. The sort of 'Do as I say but not as I do' type. Didn't take criticism at all.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?