Type 2 diabetes and statins

Mike D said:

"Seems" being the operative word .... and don't use the words "very few people" as you wouldn't know

Click to expand...

- Well I do know because of the science: The point of science over rumour, anecdotal evidence and hearsay is that it's as objective as possible. http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/06/2047487314525531.abstract

ChrisSamsDad said:

- Well I do know because of the science: The point of science over rumour, anecdotal evidence and hearsay is that it's as objective as possible. http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/06/2047487314525531.abstract

Click to expand...

Of course, I zeroed right in on this:

"Conclusions Only a small minority of symptoms reported on statins are genuinely due to the statins: almost all would occur just as frequently on placebo. Only development of new-onset diabetes mellitus was significantly higher on statins than placebo; nevertheless only 1 in 5 of new cases were actually caused by statins."

Which seems to indicate that statins do not seem to increase diabetes symptoms significantly in people that already have the disease but that 1 in 5 people that develop diabetes AFTER beginning statins can honestly point to statins as the cause. What shocks me here is the word "Only."

ONLY 1 in 5? That seems like a lot to me! Am I reading this correctly?

I'm a little bummed that this thread died. I'm very interested in the subject. Especially since my dr. recently asked me to resume Lipitor. The study shown above was the same study that he quoted to me when I first questioned the wisdom of taking statins. I felt that Lipitor was a major player in my initial diagnosis with Type 2 but he said that only 0.5% of diabetics were adversely affected by taking statins. BUT!!! the above tells a slightly different tale!

ChrisSamsDad said:

- Well I do know because of the science: The point of science over rumour, anecdotal evidence and hearsay is that it's as objective as possible. http://cpr.sagepub.com/content/early/2014/03/06/2047487314525531.abstract

Click to expand...

We'll have to agree to leave this one alone as you're never gonna shift my opinion. You might quote the supposed science ... I'll trust the REAL evidence of those who've suffered from these damned drugs

Well, I think therein lies the problem - as far as science is concerned, individual testimonials don't equal evidence, it's the overall effect of all the individuals - if a medicine saves 1,0000,000 lives but has side effects that injure 100 people, that's a disaster for the 100 people, clearly, but great news for the million, and while it's worth searching for a better medicine, in the meantime, I'd happily take those odds personally. However, if you just listened to the 100 injured, you wouldn't get that helicopter view.

ChrisSamsDad said:

Well, I think therein lies the problem - as far as science is concerned, individual testimonials don't equal evidence, it's the overall effect of all the individuals - if a medicine saves 1,0000,000 lives but has side effects that injure 100 people, that's a disaster for the 100 people, clearly, but great news for the million, and while it's worth searching for a better medicine, in the meantime, I'd happily take those odds personally. However, if you just listened to the 100 injured, you wouldn't get that helicopter view.

Click to expand...

So are you taking them yourself?

ChrisSamsDad said:

Well, I think therein lies the problem - as far as science is concerned, individual testimonials don't equal evidence, it's the overall effect of all the individuals - if a medicine saves 1,0000,000 lives but has side effects that injure 100 people, that's a disaster for the 100 people, clearly, but great news for the million, and while it's worth searching for a better medicine, in the meantime, I'd happily take those odds personally. However, if you just listened to the 100 injured, you wouldn't get that helicopter view.

Click to expand...

"Science" also said thalidomide was safe ... and no, I'm not anti science by any stretch. Your example ratios don't in any way resemble the reality of the effects of statins

Mike D said:

"Science" also said thalidomide was safe ... and no, I'm not anti science by any stretch. Your example ratios don't in any way resemble the reality of the effects of statins

Click to expand...

Well, no, 'science' didn't declare Thalidomide safe - some scientists working for drug companies did after insufficient testing. That's not the same as 'Science' - that's generally taken to mean the consensus of scientists in the field.

It's actually a very good example of why evidence-based medicine is the only option, not jumping on a result without sufficient evidence.

And talk about the pot calling the kettle black as far as talking about resembling reality, Thalidomide is the nuclear option or saying any policy is 'just like the nazis'.

bulkbiker said:

So are you taking them yourself?

Click to expand...

I have taken them for a about 7 years, but I stopped at the end of March while I'm doing LCHF, (I'm about to find out how it affects my cholesterol), not because I can firmly say that I've had side effects from them, but I have so many symptoms of various problems so it'd be nice to know which was a side-effect and which wasn't. If my Cholesterol is up, I'll have no issues starting them again. My dad died of a heart attack at 63, and I'm only 10 years off that.

As well as stopping the statins, I've stopped having to take a PPI for a hiatus hernia, which has seemingly now gone away, probably due to the weight loss. I've cut down my Metformin to the last dose (1000mg) which made any difference and don't intend to give that up ever, and hopefully I can also stop the blood pressure tablets as my blood pressure is now very much lower (110/70), but after a 4 day experiment without the meds it was back up to 130/90, so I started them again. I'm working on my overall fitness so I do hope both cholesterol and BP will be in acceptable levels without meds.

Thanks for asking.