Type 1 and Statins.

[QUOTE="Craig1978, post: 2018295, member: 502531"]Just to clarify this 100% as there seems to be some confusion going on and the thread is getting a little messy.

The type of advice I am looking for is what has been offered here, i.e direction to information sources etc and not direct advice from people as to whether I should or shouldn't take them. I, and I hope others, wouldn't just take something based on these kinds of thread, but just use it as an overview, as well as outside information resources in order to come to a decision.

My point about my job is relevant, the advice I give on my field of expertise will have all the pros and cons, and it would be up to the individual to take that advice, go away and make their own mind up. Just what the point of the thread was about really.[/QUOTE]


Couldn't agree more @Craig1978. I was offered them just over a week ago because my cholesterol is higher, so I will really, really think about it and weigh up all the pro's and con's and then ask my GP questions. At the end of the day, I won't know what it will do to me regarding side affects, unless I take them. So not IMO dicing with death, but, it just may work for me ?

Craig1978 said:

Totally genuine question, What do you know that makes you believe they are a dangerous drug? I am interested in learning as much as I can about this.

Click to expand...

I would suggest you find a 2 part series “Heart of the matter” on the internet done by the ABC Australian Broadcasting Commission same as the BBC only much poorer. Their flagship science program put statins and how they were ‘approved’ for human consumption under scrutiny as well some nasty side effects.
There were meetings with the government from big pharma after the uproar after thes second part a week latter the ABC that is owned by the government axed the science program and tried to make the 2 programs disappear. I’m prescribed them, but I don’t take them. Would you prefer a heart attack or stroke? I take precautions by staying away from saturated fats. A search from sites such as Harvard Medical School warm agaist these diets. I would prefer to take a bit more insulin and even that is suspected of causing cancer. Guess what there are only 2 certainties in life taxes and death, me personally I would prefer the taxes only...

Chowie said:

I take precautions by staying away from saturated fats. A search from sites such as Harvard Medical School warm agaist these diets.

Click to expand...

Originating from very suspect research that didn't prove a thing. Like with statins, the 5 a day mantra, and probably many other drugs and food stuffs.

@DawnOfTheZed -- For your information, memory loss is a known side-effect of statins, which was one of several mentioned on the NHS website ( intended to provide info on diseases, treatment and drugs to the general public) last tine I looked. I did use the on-line Yellow Card scheme to report depression as a side effect about three weeks after I started taking them. My doctor refused to report this, on the grounds that all patients who had raised chloresterol levels and had to watch their diet experienced depression as a result, because they were unable to eat what they wanted. I did not find it hard to report at the time. (Depression is now recognised as another undesirable side-effect.) The side effects are all on record, but doctors accept the general advice that they are well-tolerated because they have been told by the drug companies that serious side-effects are extremely rare and certain high-profile medics back them up.

@Craig1978 I also experienced the muscle and joint pain caused by statins, but I was warned about this and decided to put up with it, as I was told statins were so beneficial. Also just after I stopped the statins, I was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes. The first question I was asked by the consultant was had I ever taken statins. When I explained I had, he told me that chloresterol was required to maintain the lens in the eye and as I was aged only 50 at the time, the statins were falmost certainly the cause of my catracts. With the return to a more normal level of chloresterol, the cataracts seem to have stopped developing.

Thanks @JMK1954. That's good to know and especially impressive as you GP was against you reporting.

I see in drug leaflets I have (not statin) nowadays they are stating the likelihood of side effects eg 1 in 10 to 1 in 10,000. So the more reports, the more realistic the leaflets will become. From the conversation above it seems T1s here are often finding benefits in taking statins but some T2s are finding side effects out weighing benefits (sorry if that's a gross oversimplification).

DawnOfTheZed said:

Thanks @JMK1954. That's good to know and especially impressive as you GP was against you reporting.

I see in drug leaflets I have (not statin) nowadays they are stating the likelihood of side effects eg 1 in 10 to 1 in 10,000. So the more reports, the more realistic the leaflets will become. From the conversation above it seems T1s here are often finding benefits in taking statins but some T2s are finding side effects out weighing benefits (sorry if that's a gross oversimplification).

Click to expand...

Hi @DawnOfTheZed, I don't see T1Ds saying they are benefiting from statins on this site.
You mean that they are not having strokes or heart attacks? But that is the 'sales pitch'.
There is nothing objective that is being said by them, just a belief propagated by the prescriber (via drug company propaganda)!!!
And it has been illustrated that GPs are not being objective and are downplaying side-effects being reported to them.
OR is it just that the 'benefit' is not having side-effects?

Chowie said:

I would suggest you find a 2 part series “Heart of the matter” on the internet done by the ABC Australian Broadcasting Commission same as the BBC only much poorer. Their flagship science program put statins and how they were ‘approved’ for human consumption under scrutiny as well some nasty side effects.
There were meetings with the government from big pharma after the uproar after thes second part a week latter the ABC that is owned by the government axed the science program and tried to make the 2 programs disappear. I’m prescribed them, but I don’t take them. Would you prefer a heart attack or stroke? I take precautions by staying away from saturated fats. A search from sites such as Harvard Medical School warm agaist these diets. I would prefer to take a bit more insulin and even that is suspected of causing cancer. Guess what there are only 2 certainties in life taxes and death, me personally I would prefer the taxes only...

Click to expand...

Hi @Chowie,
Sorry to say it mate but Harvard are pushing a biased burrow.
I too thought they were ridgee didge until I subscribed to zoeharcombe.com. She is a Welsh nutritionist who did her PhD on saturated fats and heart disease and found not connection.(and quoted that there is more saturated fat in olive oil than in the same weight of pork. The olive oil being part of the Mediterranean diet famous for its place in heart healthy diets.
She has since looked at the studies on cholesterol and statins and found bias and flawed stats.
A study she did of cholesterol levels in 192 countries, based on WHO data, compared to death from cardio-vascular disease and also compared to all cause of death for both males and females showed that the higher the cholesterol level the lower the death rate.

bulkbiker said:

Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

Satins have been prescribed for years now and there has never been evidence it causes birth defects. Thalidomide was with drawn as soon a they knew what it had done. Things can happen with any drug which can't be predicted until it is used no one knows how it will affect them personally

I was in the moderate to high risk area for a heart attack and stroke within 10 years and why statins were prescribed for me. I am almost 80 now with no other medical conditions and it is over 10 years now I have been taking statins. My husband never had high cholesterol has never been overweight and was always active and well he did not take statins and they were never recommended that he should although he has T2 and last year he had a heart attack. Would he have had that if he had taken statins we will never know

JMK1954 said:

@DawnOfTheZed -- For your information, memory loss is a known side-effect of statins, which was one of several mentioned on the NHS website ( intended to provide info on diseases, treatment and drugs to the general public) last tine I looked. I did use the on-line Yellow Card scheme to report depression as a side effect about three weeks after I started taking them. My doctor refused to report this, on the grounds that all patients who had raised chloresterol levels and had to watch their diet experienced depression as a result, because they were unable to eat what they wanted. I did not find it hard to report at the time. (Depression is now recognised as another undesirable side-effect.) The side effects are all on record, but doctors accept the general advice that they are well-tolerated because they have been told by the drug companies that serious side-effects are extremely rare and certain high-profile medics back them up.

@Craig1978 I also experienced the muscle and joint pain caused by statins, but I was warned about this and decided to put up with it, as I was told statins were so beneficial. Also just after I stopped the statins, I was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes. The first question I was asked by the consultant was had I ever taken statins. When I explained I had, he told me that chloresterol was required to maintain the lens in the eye and as I was aged only 50 at the time, the statins were falmost certainly the cause of my catracts. With the return to a more normal level of chloresterol, the cataracts seem to have stopped developing.

Click to expand...

Hi, I have cataracts in both eye's and will need an op in the right eye as it is 'sizeable' now and I have never taken statins, Taking any medication has it's risks, thankfully I don't take many pills, but the one's I do take for Restless leg syndrome do sometimes give me side affects, feeling ill/nausea's but it does pass. I am willing to put up with this as I honestly couldn't be without the Ropinirole, I take it during the day and before bed and have tired other alternatives.
I hope your cataracts continue to be stable.

Pinkorchid said:

I was in the moderate to high risk area for a heart attack and stroke within 10 years and why statins were prescribed for me. I am almost 80 now with no other medical conditions and it is over 10 years now I have been taking statins. My husband never had high cholesterol has never been overweight and was always active and well he did not take statins and they were never recommended that he should although he has T2 and last year he had a heart attack. Would he have had that if he had taken statins we will never know

Click to expand...

I hope your husband has recovered well.

Robinredbreast said:

I hope your husband has recovered well.

Click to expand...

Yes his heart is stable at the moment so thank you

Due to serious clashes with medication for other conditions there turned out to be only one statin I could be prescribed. I took it but proved to be statin intolerant (a large area of my skin surface - particularly my hands - went numb). I now take ezetimibe which they tell me isn't as efficient as a statin.

I drink oat milk, and eat oat yoghurt and I'm told that helps too (which isn't why I have it, but it's a happy effect).

My husband has been taking statins for about 15 years, since diagnosis for T2. There have been no ill-effects that we have been able to notice. He's happy to keep taking them.

Pinkorchid said:

Yes his heart is stable at the moment so thank you

Click to expand...

So good to hear, I hope he continues to be stable. My mum had heart failure, never smoked and drank alcohol occasionally, she was never on statins. So many people have heart problems, often heart attacks. I know of two men, both in their 60's who had heart attacks. One had to go to Brompton hospital for a triple bypass and whilst he was in there his blood test showed up type 2 diabetes, so a double whammy for him. He cooks his meals from scratch, walks daily, has chickens and grows a lot of vegetables in his garden, and as far as I know, feels fit and healthy.

Pinkorchid said:

Satins have been prescribed for years now and there has never been evidence it causes birth defects. Thalidomide was with drawn as soon a they knew what it had done. Things can happen with any drug which can't be predicted until it is used no one knows how it will affect them personally

Click to expand...

Statins are not allowed to be prescribed in pregnancy or for children. And thalidomide's side-effects were not discovered immediately. There are plenty of ways to cover up side-effects and you have already seen on this thread people whose symptoms were dismissed by their doctors and later found to be side-effects and the reporting system for side-effects to medications seems very difficult to actually use and get reactions registered. As I have said please read someone qualified to look objectively at all the studies. Big Pharma cover up information to suit themselves and doctors are usually none the wiser.
The research team in Oxford who oversees statin trials will not release their data for independent scientists to look at their figures. If statins are so great why will they not allow scrutiny?
This mob have even developed a test to help predict who may react to statins (up to 39% they say)!!!- if statins are so great and side-effects so few why is this needed?
Whilst the test can be seen as helpful it can also allow statin companies to pick and choose who they test their new drugs on with a reduced risk of side-effects - that makes trials no longer randomised - and thus no longer as high-powered and definitive but will be presented as though they are. The drug companies are masters at this deceit.
Please read zoeharcombe.com and then please re-post.

kitedoc said:

Hi @DawnOfTheZed, I don't see T1Ds saying they are benefiting from statins on this site.
You mean that they are not having strokes or heart attacks? But that is the 'sales pitch'.
There is nothing objective that is being said by them, just a belief propagated by the prescriber (via drug company propaganda)!!!
And it has been illustrated that GPs are not being objective and are downplaying side-effects being reported to them.
OR is it just that the 'benefit' is not having side-effects?

Click to expand...

@kitedoc I guess I read some of the above quotes differently to you and oversimplified / got my summation wrong?

Evidence of a null effect (not having CVD, heart attack or stroke) is difficult to demonstrate so epidemiology is used to extrapolate reduced cholesterol levels (the bad kind - is that LDL?) to numbers of reduced CVD etc. A difficult science to ease out one effect from the myriad changes in lifestyle happening at the same time to populations. Taking a statin is a difficult decision for individuals to make. Am glad I've not been offered them yet as am not sure what I would decide.

@Pinkorchid - glad you husband is doing better.

Pinkorchid said:

My husband never had high cholesterol has never been overweight and was always active and well he did not take statins and they were never recommended that he should although he has T2 and last year he had a heart attack.

Click to expand...

Which surely should suggest that "high cholesterol " has little to do with cardio vascular disease and that lowering our levels of something that is essential for life may not be a great idea..?

Pinkorchid said:

there has never been evidence it causes birth defects

Click to expand...

I didn't claim it had just that there have been other drugs that have been "passed" as being fine which in fact were not.

The problem with statins is that the raw data from the trials have never been published. We have only seen what we have been allowed to see. If you are happy with that then fine.. personally I'm not.

Ref: zoehracombe.com - there are independent scientists who have found that saturated fat intake is not associated with heart disease, neither is cholesterol.
And the studies on statins statistically show no benefit over those not on statins in appropriately (unflawed, unbiased) conducted trials. Statins have been on the market since 1987.
A study of 192 countries (WHO data) in 2010 graphing cholesterol (total) vs death from cardio-vascular disease and same for all causes of death, in males and in females show that the higher the cholesterol reading the lower the death rate.
Repeat: the higher the cholesterol reading the lower the death rate.
Please ask your doctors about that!!!

bulkbiker said:

Thalidomide?

Click to expand...

I think thalidomides are still prescribed, now for travel sickness and other nausea but absolutely no longer for morning sickness. Probably not prescribed to women of 'child bearing age' because of the risks to a foetus.

Very difficult to test a drug on a pregnant woman as part of the safety assessment of it. Mindfield of worries for the pregnant.

PS Happy Mother's Day / Mothering Sunday (UK) today - to all the Mums here. Shame we've all lost an hour today as well (UK).