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

Type 1 and Statins.

Such an interesting thread. My opinion is that statins are offered to diabetics simply because they are diabetics (that's why your risk factor on the qwirky thing adds 10% with no variation for individual lifestyles at all). I suspect an 'average diabetic' is thought of as overweight/eating badly/no exercise/high cholesterol/high blood pressure, all from sitting on the sofa stuffing cake and so out come the statins as this type of 'average diabetic' might well go on to have a stroke or heart attack 10 years later. I am sure there are many that fit that description BUT it does not apply to all. NO account is made for a diabetic that does not fall into that category so as far as they are concerned, one size fits all so all must go on statins. They claim they are starting to tailor such medication to individuals but I am not so sure. If an individual is at such a risk that statins are a MUST simply because they are diabetic, why bother advising people to change their lifestyle?, why bother discussing food or exercise or alcohol or smoking if the abstinence of them makes no difference to your overall risk?
 
It is not only epidemiology. The studies on statins have been looked at and flaws found and misleading reports noted.
That is egregious. If their studies were so pure why will they, the statin manufacturers not release raw data to independent scientists to study? What are they hiding??
And the whole saturated fat causes heart disease and then cholesterol is added to that - and were based initially on botched epidemiology and trials (Ancels Keys and Framingham studies). There have also been trials uncovered in the past where results did NOT supporting the popular belief and were misleadingly reported. BMJ articles: on Minnesotta study (2013). and on The Sydney Diet Heart Study (2016). The word I think is 'confirmation bias:' The drug company manoeuvres to produce results that can continue to support the paradigm, doctors do work that confirms what they believe. Repeat of some of the original drug company controlled trials are found to not be reproducible for the good results' obtained . Drug trails use reporting a relative risk rather than an absolute risk or Number needed to Treat. Sleight of hand.
And the 2010 study by Zoe Harcombe of the cholesterol levels vs CVD deaths and also against All Cause death for males and for females from WHO data on 192 countries show that the higher the cholesterol the lower the death rate.
Of course this does not prove causation but it does need explaining -
and I note statins have been marketed since 1987.
 
But cataracts are a risk with diabetes anyway.
 
In the end, some people will never be convinced, and that is fine. Freedom of choice is important.

Nonetheless, in my view, the whole statin debacle is the perfect demonstration of the phrase “it’s easier to fool people than it is to convince them they’ve been fooled”.
 
Thank you Jim. I think it is time for further discussion to be referred to older threads on this topic as this could gone on forever.
 
Good luck to anyone trying to find honest to goodness evidence out there. It's hard enough even when you understand the terminology.

 
kitedoc said:
Thank you Jim. I think it is time for further discussion to be referred to older threads on this topic as this could gone on forever.
Click to expand...

I agree in principle but really it’s like flogging a dead horse. I mean no offence to anyone, but people (humans) make choices and then defend them. There are people who will never be convinced that their choices might not be ideal for them, and in my experience trying to do so just causes offence.
 

It is worth noting this applies to both sides of any debate
 
Ironically, and sadly, my mother was prescribed 4 different statins due to side effects and still died of heart failure. That’s one of the reasons I will not take them the other is due to the side effects I suffered when on them for only 6 months.
 
kitedoc said:
But cataracts are a risk with diabetes anyway.
Click to expand...

I know and many other conditions are ascociated with diabetes, but this is about statins and the possible cause of said cataracts by a member, I have cataracts, but never been on statins.
 
There are those who seem to conflate risk with inevitability, obviously this is not always the case.
 

I concur with you and from what I have read over the years, it's often the way it is said or put across, that can cause offence
 
To statin, or not to statin....
That is the question.

I looked a lot of stuff up on the subject prior to finding myself in the attempted coerce of a diabetic nurse.
The ensuing week at a GP appointment attended by some random locum reiterated predictions of the next ten years after some decent stats were done? Or purely just being type one...
Needless to say they weren't added to my prescription.

But that's my choice, one of life's lotteries.

@Craig1978 , one thing is certainly "inevitable." It's your decision.

No one on this forum is "Mystic Meg."
 

So....

Getting back to the original topic.

It looks to me like Craig is seeking input from folk who actually take this prescribed drug?
I personally know of a few people who do. But I can't vouch on thier behalf..
I personally don't take statins. So that counts me out too.

What does count me into this thread is moderating any input that takes this subject off the intended line of enquiry by the OP.

Thanks for everyone's cooperation.
 
I took Atorvastatin for several months about four years ago for a mildly elevated level, and because I was T1 that’d just turned 40. I had horrendous muscle pain and weakness within a fortnight of starting them, plus quite bad brain fog. They fell off my prescription after maybe three months and I never bothered renewing them, and I’ve never had the symptoms since - I didn’t even know they were possible side effects until the last year or so. Of course n=1 and all that, but that’s my experience of them. My LDL levels are slightly higher than they want, but my ratios are perfect. My most recent conversation with my GP was that (I quote) he wouldn’t “inflict” statins on me again. My consultant would like me to try a different one, but we’ve agreed to keep it on a watching brief. Which was me kicking the can down the road as I’ve got no intention of taking them again.

As far as my reading tells me, by far the biggest indicator for future cardiovascular issues is elevated blood glucose. I aim (and mostly succeed) to keep it at non diabetic levels, so (as a T1 with a pancreas that got eaten and no metabolic syndrome) I don’t feel that bearing the label of T1 is in itself a risk factor. I react to insulin just fine, I just can’t make any.
 
I’ve been offered statin by both gp and diabetes consultants and I said no thank you. What I don’t get is gp and consultants only talk about total cholesterol level. They don’t seem to notice my high HDL and low Trig or what they mean. They don’t even talk about the breakdown. So I don’t really feel they know much about the subject sadly...
 
Before I knew better:
Atorvastatin, intense muscle aches within one week of commencement, same for rosuvastatin.
And with the alternative, ezetrimibe - sinus pain and muscle ache.
A friend of mine developed muscle pain and destruction of muscle , rhabdomyolysis, which took years to recover from.
Another developed psychiatric issues attributed to use of statins.
A third died in a car accident which was deemed partly due to behavioural issues related to statins,
 

That's a useful post - even though we should remember anecdote is not data, the personal feedback does carry rather more weight for me than referencing some blogs.

I do wonder if it's worth writing an FAQ on this subject for those who feel strongly on it.

(my statins experience? Friendly GP said he had to offer them to me every time, and every time I said I didn't want them and we left it at that. He didn't push them hard, I just didn't want extra things floating around in my blood as a fairly low risk person).
 
Fair comment but the friend with the muscle destruction showed me his results and the one with psychiatric symptoms showed me her report.
The third was on the coroner's findings.
 
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.…