Statins Bad press

[Pace]

EXCLUSIVE: New statin danger revealed: 150,000 at risk of developing Parkinson's disease | Health | Life & Style | Daily Express (http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/562600/Parkinsons-link-statins-mass-use-drug-risk-thousands-developing-nerve-disease)

We had a thread a year ago with many uneasy about the safety of these drugs being pushed by the drug companies at even fit and healthy individuals now the truth is coming out in many areas
Oh well profits rule not patients.

Not medically qualified so just an opinion but if half the money pumped into research on producing drugs by multi $ billion drug companies was put into finding cures we would all be in a better place than being pumped full for long periods of time by these harmful drug products which we are told are safe and then find out are NOT safe at all

[Radgirl]

Pace

Thank you for enlightening us with this academic missive from the esteemed Daily Express. I dont know the doctor myself, but understand he is a GP who spends the majority of his time in adminstrative and political roles, so with all due respect I will put more weight on the thoughts of my cardiology colleagues than his.

I really do not want to reopen debates on what is treatment or what is a cure, whether drug companies are in league with the devil, or whether doctors are all on commission from drug producers. Suffice it to say that you like any patient are free to take or not take drugs as you wish and nobody will complain.

However, this is not another issue with statins per se but interesting work on the role of cholesterol in Parkinsons. Basically high cholesterol puts you at risk of sudden death from a heart attack or a stroke whereas low cholesterol MAY make the onset of Parkinsons more likely.

I will take this additional information on board and incorporate it into my advice to patients who seek advice as to whether to take statins. Of course I always recommend the statins that lower as opposed to increase the risk of diabetes

[Pace]

Radgirl

Using statins for seriously ill people where the benefits might out way the downsides is one thing but promoting mass medication for people over 50 who are otherwise in reasonable health is a very dangerous and money motivated route to take.

we have to be wary of any research as the research can be tailored for or against a product.

There have been many drugs which have been given the all clear like sleeping pills and antidepressants have then been used for 20 years and dished out like sweets to then find serious an damaging side effects.

and no it doesn't suit the drug companies to find absolute cures it does suit them to have patients on expensive drugs for life

No smoke without fire! There have been enough worrying reports on Statins so early on in the the life span of the drugs to cause grave concerns over their use and probably a lot more independent studies need to be made?
As Before I am not medically qualified just concerned and like in my flying don't trust any single indication ) and I certainly would not trust research instigated by drug companies or sponsored by drug companies without equal independent and unbiased confirmation

Finally yes you are right no one forces the General public to take drugs but the general public including myself are not qualified to know so place our trust in people who are telling us that what we are taking is safe. when there are conflicting reports that trust goes

Pace

[cavortingcheetah]

(Of course I always recommend the statins that lower as opposed to increase the risk of diabetes .)

That would imply rosuvastatin as opposed to simvastatin and atorvastatin I make so bold as to suppose?

But does the jury seems slightly hung? A very recent Finnish cohort program admitted in its findings that although the size of the group (>600) made the study reliable, the participants were all Caucasian males. Further research would thus be required to establish application as regards a statin to diabetes link as it might apply to women or even to people of ethnic origin other than Caucasian males.

Just as in every aspect of medicine there are choices. There are people who cannot easily tolerate rosuvastatin while in some the dangers caused by cholesterol might outweigh the risk of Type 2 Diabetes.

At least two points of interest are raised here though.

One is that there is more than a single type of statin. Another is that once a patient begins to take more than one (prescription) medication there can inevitably arise a conflict of side effects. General practitioners are perhaps sometimes not sufficiently familiar with their Mimses and nor can they be expected to be. Who then is the Mims expert of last resort, the mixer of potions and the interpreter of inter reactive medications?

[Thomas coupling]

Radgirl, good evening.
What are your views on Pravastatin or Fluvastatin? Both are said to be beneficial towards diabetes. The local GP won't prescribe it on the NHS because of the costs!
Thanks in advance

[Radgirl]

TC

There is now good evidence that there is a spectrum of activity from statins which effect the likelihood of developing diabetes in later life. Previous posters have suggested research can be biased or perhaps they mean fixed. That is not so as unles there is fraud, which results in criminal and professional sanctions (doctors get struck off), peer reviewed research is unbiased. However that is not to say that one paper fully explains everything.

The problem is that those patients on statins, or those patients entered into these trials, may already have an increased risk of diabetes. We are being rather cautious about this and as you say the NHS doesn't beleve the evidence is strong enough to move to more expensive statins. However, all these drugs are now relatively cheap and as the statins which may lower the risk of diabetes are not known to have other specific risks, I would of choice steer towards them.

There is of course nothing to stop you asking your doctor for a private prescription and purchasing the drugs on the high street or via an online chemist

[dirkdj]

Some interesting opinions on statins on this website: spacedoc (http://www.spacedoc.com/).

I stopped statins 4 years ago, never regretted it, had several of the side-effects mentioned. Loss of short term memory was one of them, GP said it was just old age, same with the other effects.

[Thomas coupling]

Thanks Radgirl - appreciated.

I have to say - one really has to grip these GP's in general because you are made to feel inferior when they spout on about a specific drug and if you question them over it, they look down their noses at you asif to say - what do you know sonny?
I have "waded" through statins for the last 5 years. First ones (simvastatin) crippled me. I could hardly walk and it felt like my hips were failing on me. I did some research and suspected the satins. I then took myself off them for a month only to find my hip pains went completely. I went back to the GP and told him this and he told me I was one in a million suffering these side effects. So he put me on Lipitor. After several weeks, no aches or pains but I began to experience some very 'cloudy' thinking. Almost as if I would think about something but was struggling to get to the end of the thought process???
I couldn't put my finger on it, just - fuzzy thinking?? This dragged on for months and months until - research flagged up that this could be a side effect of statins. Stopped them immediately and lo and behold, the clarity in my thinking returned almost overnight!
OK - so more research on statins - went to a different doc and told him my plight. He listened (for once) and we both looked at the range of statins that might help me. By now, I had settled on Fluvastatin because of its propensity NOT to contribute towards diabetes. Sorry can't give you that buddy - it's not on our NHS list of cheap and common drugs. Try this one - Crestor. That was 6 months ago. All went well, it is definitely an aggressive cholestorol killer, my figures plumetted (UK: 5.2 to 3.8).

But now I find that Crestor has been found to increase the chances of diabetes by atleast 17%. I have stopped this now as well.

Who to believe, what to believe.......I wish Doctors would either do more research on the drugs they peddle or atleast be totally forthcoming about the side effects and not treat all patients like dullards!
Rant - off.:rolleyes:

[Planet Basher]

I tried 3 different types and each had the same effects, all of them except going loony so I stopped. The decent into and recovery from the negative symptoms were the same and repeatable on each brand.

Having seen the number of people who have problems and the suspiciously enthusiastic denials of the experts I could let myself think there was a conspiracy.

Admittedly my statistical sample could be called into question as the affected people could only post on the forums I frequent whilst all the others are totally fine.:p

[dirkdj]

Here is a good explanation of one of the side effects of statin drugs, the deficiency of CoenzymeQ10 and its effects: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxWP3Q2M-Pw

[gingernut]

fit and healthy individuals

there is a reason they continue to be fit and healthy.

Drug company propaganda should be viewed with a health pinch of saline.

No-one is forcing patients to take statins, prescribers only offer advice.

The evidence for the use of statins in those who are not "diseased" is very robust. The argument for rosuvastatin, Crestor etc being superior is less so.

[CharlieOneSix]

When I was 60 – just coming up next month to 10 years ago – my GP said I had entered an age related risk zone and he suggested I take a daily dose of 75mg of aspirin and 40mg of Simvastatin. Within a few weeks I was getting severe cramps in my legs, especially at night, and he reduced the statin dose to 20mg. My cholesterol reduced from 5.7 to 3.8 and the cramps became intermittent and manageable.

After 6 years I became really ill and lost a lot of weight – nearly 30lbs. After an endoscopy they found 4 stomach/duodenal ulcers caused by the aspirin and once I stopped taking them that problem went away.

Last summer I became aware of a pain in my left side low on my waist which I put down to either a pulled muscle due to manoeuvring a heavy motor mower around or else something to do with my diverticulitis or ulcerative colitis. I mentioned it in passing to my GP but nothing was taken further. In the autumn the pain was affecting my sleeping and this time the leg cramps had returned with a vengeance. I asked to come off the Simvastatin for 3 months to see if this was the cause and this was agreed.

The pain in my side and the leg cramps had disappeared by the end of the three months. The GP asked me to try 10mg of Atorvastatin and if after a month I had no problems he would put that up to 20mg, the normal dose. At this point he said my pain issue last summer could be due to the Simvastatin.

There was no problem with 10mg but within 7 days of the dose going to 20mg two weeks ago the pain in my left side returned plus my left hip is really painful and I have stopped taking them. I have to report to my GP next week and will probably say I want to come off the statins altogether. The side effects of statins in my case are just not worth it – nor were the ulcers due to the aspirin.

[dirkdj]

After having another one of my posts removed from this forum only, I want to repeat my bad experience with statins. Four years ago I decided that enough is enough and I wanted to know why I lost my short term memory. When given a simple frequency when flying, I had to ask for repeats two or three times before getting the correct number. When going to the kitchen to fetch something to drink, by the time I got there (10 seconds later) I already had forgotten what I wanted. The doctor said it was just old age (mid 50s) and I better got used to it. I refused this as an answer and began studying.
I have read the following books, in random order:

'The great cholesterol con' by Dr Malcolm Kendrick
'The great cholesterol myth" by cardiologist Dr Stephen Sinatra
'Cholesterol is not the culprit' by Fred Kummerow PhD
'Ignore the awkward, how the cholesterol myths are kept alive' by Dr Uffe Ravnskv MD, PhD
'Statin drugs side effects and the misguided war on cholesterol' by Dr Duane Graveline
'Statin drugs and their natural alternatives' by DrJay Cohen MD
'Metabolic Cardiology' by cardiologist Dr Stephen Sinatra

Dr Stephen Sinatra used to work as a paid lobbyist for statin drugs.

Big pharma has done a wonderful job of brainwashing a considerable part of the health professionals unfortunately.

[snooky]

Coenzyme Q10 deficiency due to statins can be alleviated by taking the Q10 supplement available at most supermarkets. It certainly helped me when I began taking statins with many of the symptoms described by others, indeed in some parts of the world I understand that a Q10 supplements must be prescribed whenever statins are.

[Pace]

>>Statins: Heart disease drug speeds up ageing process, warns new research
STATINS make regular users become older faster, leaving them open to long-term mental and physical decline, according to disturbing new research.<<

http://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/608210/statins-age-you-faster-new-research-suggests-long-term-use-warning

And to think the drug companies wanted to medicate all over the age of 50 with Statins

[goudie]

Load of old rubbish. I've been on statins for years and have never felt better or fitter, mentally and physically

[paully]

Likewise Goudie...Its the Express, they specialise in medical scare stories:ugh:...real journalism is beyond them these days

[Radgirl]

Indeed

This is not clinical research. The good professor is a cell biologist working on stem cells in a laboratory. And the expert doctor who adds his opinion is a GP well known for his views against statins who says high cholesterol levels reduce death rates.

It can be difficult to separate the wheat from the chaff

[gingernut]

I've read the article, and it's a long way from "science."

The BMA publish loads of stuff on Critical Appraisal.

Luckily they agree with me that "Expert Opinion" is miles away from Multi-Centered Randomised Controlled Trials.

[Pace]

The problem with Statins are there are some pretty serious side effects already showing in.a drug which is relatively new!

With this latest claim surely further research needs to be done before these claims are so lightly dismissed!

Pace

[onetrack]

There's plenty of information available from researchers, doctors, and individuals, who report that statins have way too many side-effects to be as effective as the proponents claim.
Those side-effects cover such a wide range of problems, it really does make one wary about their use.

Why I will never take statins again (http://www.science20.com/interwebometry/blog/why_i_will_never_take_statins_again-132368)

Statins for heart disease prevention without prior heart disease? (http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/)

[Uplinker]

I am not a medical doctor, but I do know that the body needs cholesterol - it is a natural compound and an essential part of mammal cell membranes. It is also an essential component of the myelin sheath that is the insulation around our nerve fibres. Our bodies will manufacture cholesterol if it needs to.

We have been told for years that people with high cholesterol get heart disease, so we have all cut back on our cholesterol intake. But what if it is the other way round? What if people who HAVE heart disease manufacture lots of cholesterol to try to repair the damage to their weak hearts?

The heart diesease itself could be caused by lack of exercise. Doctors constantly tell us we should do more exercise. Any muscle - and the heart is constructed of muscle - that is not regularly used will not be maintained in peak condition by the body. The heart beats all the time of course, but if it rarely or never gets above a certain level of work, then it will become weak and then might develop faults, in the same way that a car engine that only ever sits idling in traffic will clog up.

So for example it might not have been the lorry driver's greasy spoon breakfasts that were the problem but the fact that lorry drivers sat in a chair for 12 hours and did not exercise that caused their heart problems.

So there we all are avoiding butter, full fat milk and animal fats etc to keep our cholesterol down. However perhaps our bodies are having difficulty maintaining themselves and cruically the myelin insulation around our nerves. So dementia - possibly caused by crosstalk between the nerves owing to the poor insulation - is starting to become a real problem.

Statins change the balance of cholesterol in our bodies, reducing LDL and increasing HDL, but maybe this is causing other problems, such as reducing the ability of the body to maintain itself, leading to 'premature aging' and possibly dementia?

I am just thinking aloud here. Any doctors on the forum?

[Pace]

I am opposed or rather concerned about statins because I had a really good friend who was an elderly pilot in his 70s who flew with me.

A fit guy for his age who walked his dog 5 miles every day.

Within the space of a couple of months I was seriously concerned at his forgetfulness with what appeared to be dementia doing stupid things in the cockpit like attempting to turn onto 100 degrees instead of 010 to fly South to North to his homeland in Scotland.

When asked why? he simply stated that he misheard 100. I told him that he should know which direction Scotland was in. Another time he asked me to call his wife and could I remember his home number as he had forgotten.

I had a serious chat with him as he was now becoming a danger and he told me that his doctor had put him on Statins as a precaution because of his age.
He also complained of feeling tired and muscle aches so much so that he was no longer walking the dog 5 miles.

He stopped the Statins and quickly returned to normal.

I have no doubts seeing the abrupt changes that the statins were the cause and since then have eyed them with suspicion.

I also realise that the drug companies make a fortune from these drugs and won't plough money into reasons why they should not be used
So having seen the effects on my friend I would tend to believe that these drugs will cause premature ageing. At Minimum a full independent study should be made into the claims below and not by the drug companies who will stick their heads in the sand claiming all is fine?

Statins prevented stem cells from performing their main functions, to reproduce and replicate other cells in the body to carry out repairs.

The researchers found the statins prevented stem cells from generating new bone and cartilage.

They also found they increased ageing.

Professor Izadpanah said: “People at high risk of heart disease can reduce this risk by taking statins. However, considering the adverse effects of these drugs and their association with so many side effects, it is crucial people are fully aware of the risks before they take the treatment.”

Pace

[Just an other number]

Statins
Give me a break.
The practice nurse saw high bad cholesterol and prescribed Simvastatin.
Within days I felt the effects. Could not fully wake up before 11 am despite getting up at 8.
Finally saw a real doctor. Medic to TA Norfolk. He said if it's that bad just stop it.
So I did and felt better next day.

[Sleeve Wing]

Simvastatin ?
Yep, me too.
Same symptoms so I stopped.
Never felt better, oh, and a couple of weeks ago walked the Cotswold Way in 7½ days !

I’m still concerned about what’s apparently going on though………
I’m 76 now and have always understood that your blood pressure will naturally increase a bit with age anyway but with no ill effects……..

[AngioJet]

Like with any medication statins come with SEs. If you experience any adverse symptoms then of course stopping intake is advisable.

However, the claims made in the above article are rather spurious and not backed up by sound scientific evidence. In contrast, there is ample data from several thousands of patients suggesting that statins reduce cardiovascular events. For now, the latter clearly outweighs the former.

With regards to cholesterol, yes of course we need it. But what we do have is better in the HDL rather than the LDL variety. Moreover, there is evidence that the beneficial effects of statins are mediated not only by the lowering of cholesterol but also through other so-called pleiotropic effects on the blood vessels.

I would strongly suggest that you continue taking your medication if you are on statins unless you experience SEs, in which case get in touch with your GP. There are alternative medications if you can't tolerate them.
(COI: medically qualified...)

[gingernut]

I'm convinced statins are up there with the broad street pump, mosquito nets and immunisations, but perhaps the point of "diminishing returns" may have been met :confused:

[gordon field]

I was advised to take statins and they prematurely aged me with muscle loss, nerve problems, cramps and many other side affects. I couldn't climb into my own aircraft and wouldn't fly because of sudden cramp in the legs. After stopping I notced an immediate improvement but estimate that it has taken me a full 2 years to get rid of the after effects.

I am fitter now than I was 10 years ago and at age 75 hope to continue flying for at least another 5 years.

[Pace]

There has to be confidence in what the medical world says and there has been enough smoke around Statins to cause a lot of concern on whether the benefits out way the negatives of taking these drugs.

You have to remember that the same medical world not long ago were pushing these drugs to be taken by everyone and perfectly healthy people over the age of 50.

Then we hear new claims on how dangerous statins are and how crippling they can be. We see post after post by ordinary people stating what awful, crippling side effects they are experiencing yet this is brushed aside by the medical world claiming that all is wonderful in the garden with these drugs.

There maybe benefits to some who tolerate the drugs and who have serious heart disease but when we see the medical world trying to promote Statins for mass consumption and medication is it no wonder that the ordinary laymen looses confidence in what the medical world are saying in the drugs defence and become suspicious of both the knowledge and motivation behind those assurances?

Pace

[canukeng]

for anyone having aches and pains in joints or muscles whilst taking statins, you should talk to your doctor/chemist about taking a daily CoQ10 capsule. The statins block the cascade reaction in your body which produces CoQ10, and that is why your joints and muscles hurt. Good CoQ10 available everywhere...cost about 80c per day for the capsule. Ask your doctor for further advice if required.

[onetrack]

I guess a lot of people can't remember what a fantastic, great drug, thalidomide was in the late 1950's and early 1960's.
Side effects? No! - no known serious side effects, just keep on taking it, the benefits are huge!! :suspect: :ooh: :rolleyes:

[dirkdj]

All you want to know about statins is on spacedoc.com.
I was a victim and needed at least two or three tries to copy a simple frequency. By the time the last digits were spoken by ATC I had forgotten some of the preceding ones. Very embarassing, even unsafe in my opinion.

No gain; lots of pain.

[tomahawk_pa38]

My doctor put me on statins some years ago after having a blood test which revealed high cholesterol. I had no noticable side effects so after 3 months I had another blood test to check how the cholesterol was going. Liver enzymes were almost off the scale with my GP saying that she was surprised I wasn't bright yellow!

We argued about the cause with me saying it must be the statins as I was OK 3 months ago before I started taking them - she disagreed so I stopped taking them and changed doctor. Another blood test and a liver scan 3 months later - back to normal.

[skyship007]

It's not a good idea to ask a doctor to prescribe BP or Cholesterol lowering drugs. See a good cardiologist and get all the tests done including full blood analysis and the bike game.

Trying to measure BP correctly is very difficult, so it's good to take your own readings (After reading up on the subject) and then keep a graph.

All drugs have side effects and Satans drugs are bad in that respect. If your blood results are not good, CHANGE YOUR DIET unless the specialist insists you need to pop pills in addition.

[Pace]

Tomahawk

I wonder why so many Doctors ignore their patients and stick so rigidally to the party line? Is it indoctrination, slick marketing by the multi $billion drug companies or what?

I wish a fraction of what is spent producing drugs was spent finding cures. Drugs for life equal big business cures don't :ugh:

But as shown in this small thread all in the garden is not beautiful concerning Statins and a lot of patient confidence is being lost by ignoring what patients are saying

Pace

[obgraham]

I wish a fraction of what is spent producing drugs was spent finding cures. Drugs for life equal big business cures don't
Please clarify: "cures" always involve side effects.

[Pace]

A cure is something in the body which is not functioning in the correct way and rectifying that. The body should be able to rectify and control itself in a correct fashion. If something goes wrong it cannot do that. A cure is returning the body to where it can

An example is HBP which is not fully understood. Some people can be slim healthy, exercise a lot and still suffer with HBP. Others can be fat eat all the wrong things don't exercise yet show low BP readings.

a cure would be a full understanding of why and putting that right rather than using life long drugs with side effects to artificially lower it.

The same with HIV? Eliminate the Virus from the body which is causing the problems rather than medicate to keep people going?

There must be hundreds of examples including Cancer where we can imagine a cure rather than drugs

I am not medically qualified although I would have liked to have followed that path so maybe I am way off course in my thinking and while I realise that many drugs help people in an absence of a cure some have had very bad effects.

One poster mentioned thalidomide considered a safe drug and we all know the results of that?
Lastly where large sums of money are involved as in the drug industry there will naturally be suspicion?
I am sure in 50 years time Cancer will be treated differently and people then will look back and say that in 2015 they were so antiquated and lacking knowledge that they used to bombard the body with highly toxic drugs to extend peoples lives as we do at blood letting centuries ago

Pace

[gingernut]

What does the evidence say ?

[Pace]

Well we know it can cause diabetes surely thats bad enough in itself ?
Read a number of comments in this small thread and they should be enough for concern.
Think to the example given of Thalidomide in this thread? A drug which was proclaimed to be safe. If Today many would say where is the evidence as you are saying?
with Statins there is enough smoke to consider a fire and enough similar reports in even this small thread to give concern ?
So maybe your question of what does the evidence say should be replaced by where is the evidence that disproves the claims of patients in this thread and the claims of the research scientist below


Statins prevented stem cells from performing their main functions, to reproduce and replicate other cells in the body to carry out repairs.

The researchers found the statins prevented stem cells from generating new bone and cartilage.

They also found they increased ageing

so I would rather see the evidence that the scientist is wrong

Pace

[obgraham]

My point, Pace, is that a "cure" is never without consequences.

You can "cure" appendicitis by means of a fairly straightforward operation. But a few people will suffer side effects of said "cure" and be worse off.

So, as Gingernut wisely asks: "What does the evidence say?" To get the answer you try different things, find out what treatment works the best for the greatest number of afflictees.

You may well be right about cancer treatment 50 to 100 years from now. If fact I might even agree with you. But all we have to go on is what we know NOW.

Two things I'm sure of, though: Firstly, making a decision for a large group based on what worked for a couple of people is folly. And Second, seeking a magic cure with no side effects is also folly (See: Colloidal Silver; Krebiozen; Hydrazine; Lydia Pinkham's Wonder Tonic; etc.)

[Pace]

ind out what treatment works the best for the greatest number of afflictees.

Obigraham

I stress I am not medically qualified so you will have to take my comments as such. I am not against patients with serious disease going for the better of two evils but you know that it was not long ago that there was pressure to mass medicate all over the age of 50 with Statins based on the evidence of the drug then? This was for perfectly healthy people.
My friend for his age was put on statins not because he was ill but because of his age and as a precaution with a dramatic negative change in his well being ( See my earlier post}

Pace

[onetrack]

It is an unfortunate fact of modern medicine today, that young doctors are taught to prescribe a pill for everything.
Drug companies send commission sales agents around to medical practices and convince doctors that their companys product provides incredible results, while the agent plays down any side effects, or fails to mention the important ones.

Virtually every drug produced, has side effects of some kind. A large number of drugs produce tolerable side effects. A minority of drugs have particularly bad side effects.
It helps enormously when drug companies are clear, concise, and uninhibited in providing full disclosure of ALL side effects.

Unfortunately, the primary aim of the corporate world is profit, increased return to shareholders, and increased salaries to senior management.

Patient health, and attention to ethics, morals, and honesty by revealing the full range of side effects takes a very much lower rung on the ladder if profits are going to be compromised by revealing some nasty side effects, that are better off being kept hidden.

The side effects of numerous drugs are very often downplayed, with soothing statements that only a minority suffer the side effects, whilst the majority see huge benefits.

Where a major conflict of interest arises, as in the case of drug companies being the ones telling clients the downsides of their product, the drug companies cannot be trusted to reveal the full story.

[obgraham]

Pace, actually we're not that far apart: I think we, especially in the US are vastly overmedicated, and I'm not a great fan of any plan which involves "medication for all", or routinely medicating for a lab test result.

But likewise, I'm not in favor of making any decision on the basis of "what happened to my sister-in-law's uncle when he was given that drug".

[Radgirl]

Oh dear, every few months the same old posters start up about statins. Raised from their hibernation by some dodgy newspaper article or obscure laboratory work, they inform us of a friend or relative that falls into the 1% of severe symptoms and had the misfortune to be under the care of the 0.1% of doctors that underperform.

The fact is that doctors do not over prescribe, patients over demand. In the UK the government has just had a tiz about the massive over prescription of antibiotics for sore throats. The result? GPs all agree but patients demand them and they are handed out.

I am dismayed that thalidomide has now been brought into the argument. It was because of the unpredicted side effects of this drug that most countries around the world set up the regulatory framework that require new drugs to go through animal and then human studies and this is why we have not had a recurrence.

We all want a cure, but the reality is that cures are rare. My practicing lifetime has seen the greatest lengthening of life expectancy not because of medical advances but because of improved diets, less smoking and improved lifestyles/jobs/air quality. Those cures we are expecting (HIV, macular degeneration etc) will be so labour intensive or costly that only the ones that seriously improve quality of life will be affordable, and even then only in a handful of first world countries.

To those of you who slander doctors and the drug industry (I havent met a sales rep in 20 years) think what life would be like without antibiotics. Think what the second and third world would consist of without drugs and vaccinations.

Statins save far more lives than they harm. As the 'opposition' have posted, side effects are reversible. Heart attacks and strokes kill, and death is not reversible.

Can we please remember nobody is forced to take statins. Those who believe the science is wrong can go without. But lets not keep going round this argument again and again.

[Gordomac]

Radgirl ; Oooops. Chill. Little bit too feisty. Just because you haven't seen a Rep in twenty years doesn't mean that they have ceased knocking on your door does it ? I was a Medical Rep donks ago and know the deal. As a professional airline pilot, I was diagnosed with Type 2 Diabetis. I was oversubscribed "medication" and STATINS nearly killed me. I threw the medication down the drain. Through diet, I dropped 20kg. In retirement, I exercise a lot more (not gym or running marathons but general hairing about the house & garden & walking to the Taverna rather than drive, etc etc). I tossed the medication seven years ago.........................still here !

In a balanced world, of course there is room for everything. Find what suits you. Professional pilots are highly trained and analytical. We are trained to spot tunnel vision & are very suspicious of the medics who have direct control over our professional well being but, OFTEN, get it completely wrong but will never admit it.

Keep up the posts. Well respected & grateful as we are to you and Gingernuts. The good that you guys do (as a profession) far outweigh the errors. But, gees, radgirl, I need to take you up to my local & buy you a Pinacolada with stacks of cream (full fat), fake cherries (coated in sugar), loadsa other naughties, but, hey, balance (?). Next day, .............clean out diet................!

Now, I'm off to the Mill base at Dhekilia for MY idea of the mediterranean diet ; Fried eggs & chips washed down with a Keo shandy. STATINS (?) noo, noo, noo, noo !!

[Radgirl]

I'd love to have a drink with you Gordomac. Someone who can be complementary and shoot me down at the same time would be fascinating.

Sorry to disappoint but I am not crouched over my keyboard with steam coming out of my ears. You will notice I refrained from posting for some time. An issue arises however when so many people post anecdotal stories because others might take them as science and compromise their care. It seems you may have reversed your type 2 diabetes as I have described in another thread so well done, but simply throwing drugs down the drain and not seeking further advice was d@@@.

Luckily as you say pilots are analytical and most will understand studies looking at tens of thousands of patients over decades carry more scientific weight than an individual's anecdote or your claims of some great conspiracy....... But you are being mischievous: if you were a 'rep' you should be aware knocking on my door is actually banned! You should be aware I dont control any patient I merely advise (albeit often from a perceived position of power). And to claim I 'often' get it wrong is the same as me saying you often crash your plane. Mistakes occur in both professions and both have massive regulation and regulators with sharp teeth!

Now how about that drink?

[Mr Optimistic]

Father in law is an ex-gp and gas been on and off statins. They don't suit everyone, the side effects can be unacceptable, but there are many different sorts and the trick is to find one that works.

The NHS is in need of a major overhaul wrt costs though and over prescription for blame avoidance is endemic, as is sending for blood test, prescribing over the counter medicines to the 97% prescriptions which are free to the patient etc. So yep can beliveve that statins are over prescribed.

Water retention medicines have been the big life savers.

[Pace]

RadGirl

I appreciate your posts and knowledge and past help on a delicate matter! None of us are against medication but some have light side effects some medium and some debilitating side effects which can cause damage in their own rights like Statins which are proven to cause diabetes!
While not questioning the benefits to seriously ill patients where they are considered the better of two evils at what point do you recommend their use ? Fit and healthy ? Mild problems ? Or severe ?
Maybe we should label drugs as green Amber or Red depending on their known or even suspected side effects to give patients a better idea of what they are taking!
While maybe not scientifically proven there is enough smoke around Statins to indicate a fire and these claims which pop up in the press should be scientifically disproven rather than the other way around ?

Pace

[gingernut]

I feel the need to make another post, but first I need a lie down, and some time to collect my thoughts, so in the mean time, let's all take a chill pill, (not a statin) - here's a photo from Fistral Beach last night, now breatheeeeeee....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/gingernut123/DSC_0100_zpsfop09gxf.jpg

[Winnerhofer]

Agree with you 100%
Sedentary lifestyles is a silent killer and that's why 70% of men get prostate cancer because the more you sit, the more the prostates risks inflammation from a benign condition to a malign one.
As for sports, cycling is a prostate killer.
Now back to cholesterol: it's only a symptom and not the cause.
All medication is POISON and must be used as a last resort as all illnesses are triggered by psychosomatic visceral imbalances caused by emotional traumas.
As for sports, lateral and multidirectional movements mixed with braking are the ultimate get-fit-quick fix.
I don't breathe when doing UHIE (Ultra High-Intensity Exercise) which increases burn rate dramatically.

[Radgirl]

I thought all illness was caused by histamine Winnerhofer!!!!

Sorry

Pace your question is spot on. A lot of the anecdotes do not reflect well on the healthcare provider. There are some patients who definitely do need statins - those with type 2 diabetes for example. This group should already be monitored by a doctor and side effects picked up and dealt with.

When it comes to the worried well, a good GP will provide lifetime care and within this relationship discuss lifestyle choices and ongoing cardiac risk. Selective and proven screening such as blood pressure and later virtual colonography will selectively try to identify and manage common pathology.

Statins are one cog in this, not started on a whim but as part of the process, recommending statins that reduce diabetes (statins do not cause diabetes but some appear to accelerate its onset) and only with the patient's agreement. We would always monitor liver function tests and monitor for side effects, if necessary changing the brand and then if necessary stopping. Doctors will review new research but give it weighting according to its providence. Newspaper selection is vital!

I recognise that this perfect world doesn't exist and the NHS in particular is in crisis but only by identifying the cause can we improve

[gingernut]

ay, I've had a lie down so I'll try and sift through some concerns, I hope it's helpful, please feel free to agree or disagree, or if there are any epidemiologists/public health/experts in the fields of critical appraisal, please feel free to chip in.

The following is my opinion, and any individual medical advice should be backed up by your doctor and medical authority.

I've retired from The NHS but do still see patients. I've been proud to be part of three main achievements that I've observed over the last 30 years:

-Cancer is now classed as a "chronic disease" (We've got a long way to go.)
-We now afford dying patients the care they deserve (We've got a long way to go.)
-People my age aren't dying, or becoming irreversibly damaged by the effects of atheroma-furring up of the arteries (We've got a long way to go.)

I trained in Manchester, if you think of "Joe Average" chances of dying early through heart disease as equaling 100, then some parts of my ward scored 176. (SMR rates).

I have total respect for Pace and those others who have posted on here, exacerbated by the fact that we seem perhaps a little too eager to commit them to a lifetime of medicating.

I'll try and sift through things as best I can.

Firstly, the "cure" thing. I can't remember the last time I cured someone.

My surgical colleagues may disagree with me, but let's face it, one of the major reasons cancer patients have better surviveability is because the surgeon now talks to the radiologist, who now talks to the oncologist etc etc.

I think it may have been when I syringed someones ears in the nineties- they stopped us doing that, as someone worked out that the "risk/benefit" equation demonstrated that we burst more eardrums from the silver thing that flew off the end on the syringe, than the inconvenience we would cause by saying to the patient "put olive oil in your lug hole until the wax falls out."

How we define "health" is riddled with problems. I've dealt with 18 year old patients, who, on the face of it, appear healthy to me. Correct BMI, "normal" blood pressure, low cholesterol etc etc, - the fact that he can't face going to work in the morning, makes him, in his eyes, unhealthy. Conversely, there's a girl who works down our local ASDA on the tills, who was obviously born with the most terrible congenital abnormalities. She daily serves me with my crate of Pinot and Rustlers burgers. She always looks happy, and smiles all the time. I'd love to ask her if she feels healthy.

Medicine seems fascinated by "The Absence of Disease but I suspect that there is more to this than meets the eye. We sometimes don't seek to promote positive health, and sometimes we tend to overlook the wider determinants of health.

The evidence bit. Heart disease and stroke kills and maims hundreds of thousands of people in the UK each year.

I'm not that arrogant to state that medicine makes that much difference. Pound for pound, spending money on pre-school education and town planning can probably do more than anything I can write on my prescription pad. Getting my patients to walk 30 minutes a day for 4-5 days a day is far more effective than any pill I can prescribe.

Medication, actually, is only a part of the solution.

I think what we are talking about here on this thread is primary prevention, which essentially involves asking someone to take a chemical for the rest of their life-when they are actually well. They won't feel any better for taking this chemical, but they may actually have adverse effects.

It's a hard sell.

I think it's a fair comment to say we have been influenced by external factors that haven't always served the best interests of the patients.

I, like Radgirl have not had a "free lunch" from a drug company rep for a very long time.

I wouldn't dare :-)

There are checks and balances in the system, a sort of "division of the powers" involving the statutory bodies such as NICE, the local regulators, Medicines Management as well as our own accountability to our employer, civil law, criminal law, etc.

In terms of how we do it?

Secondary prevention (treating people who already have established disease) is a no brainer and actually causes us (prescribers) no hassle-a touch near to death is a great concordance motivator.

Primary prevention is a bit more tricky, and it's a "hard sell."

In terms of evidence, we try to stratify things in terms of "robustness."

At the bottom of the pile
anecdotal evidence.........not always to be discounted, I'll even give some of my anecdotal evidence later.

In the middle
are cohort/population studies. (Let's see what happens to a hundred patients in Iceland who eat a lot of Fish compared to a hundred patients in Salford who eat MacDonalds.)

At the top of the evidence pile are the Multi-centred, Blind, Randomised Control Trials (Have a look at The BMJ)

It's this sort of stuff that our prescribing decisions are (or should) be based upon. We don't always achieve this (SSRi's anyone?)

The decision to treat is based on some sort of risk assessment (don't shoot the messenger.)

This usually involves placing certain variables into an algorithm, (blood pressure/HDL/LDL/postcode (!), smoking status which then gives us a "ten year" risk figure.

The "ten year risk" figure is quite crap.

It tells me how many "People sat in front of me with this blood pressure/HDL etc etc) are likely to have an arteriosclerotic event in the next ten years.

What it fails to do, is tell me which patients, out of the theoretical hundred, will have an event, and which won't.

I use a 10 by 10 grid to sort of play odds management with my patients.

This is the most important point-statins only work if patients take them daily, from this thread, it sounds like many aren't. Communicating the facts is key, but at the end of the day, patient choice is paramount

In terms of doing good and doing harm, I can only report anecdotal findings.

Myalgia (muscle pain) is quite common, the key here is education, any muscle pains should be followed up with Blood Tests, to exclude Myopathy (Muscle Damage), I've seen a couple of cases of deranged liver function tests, both of which resolved on titrating the dose down.

The key here is to attend for the initial blood tests.

I walk round Manchester now and very rarely see IHD/CVA crippled people :-)

[Pace]

Gingernut and Radgirl

Thanks for your informative posts
There is a big difference from being prescribed a course of tablets like antibiotics and being given a life sentence to commit to taking a tablet with potentially serious side effects for the rest of your life!
Especially when feeling well as in some cases of HBP it is hard to stomach taking pills which make you feel unwell?
From a laymans perspective when the scientific conclusion is questioned or changed which does happen public confidence goes! Cholesterol and its mechanism and interaction is not fully understood and that is the case with HBP
It has recently been discovered That people with HBP are less likely to develop Alkzeimers so are you going to increase the chances of the patient developing Alkzeimers by lowering HBP ?
Smoking cigarettes is taking a drug or rather a number of harmful chemicals I am sure if you looked hard enough you would find some benefits in those poisons in lowering something ?
Wolfarin is a poison but has the effect of thinning blood!
Maybe I used the wrong word saying cure but more fully understanding the reason for something going wrong in the bodies balance and targeting that!
HBP is a good example where now research is looking more at control mechanisms in the brain controlling HBP going wrong or maybe it's natural in some and part of their makeup ?
So really we are looking at long term drugs which can make a patient unwell through the drugs and whether the benefits out way the negatives
When you see sections of the medical world pushing the use of Statins on fit healthy people over the age of 50 alarm bells have to ring
My grandmother years ago was told to take up smoking by her GP to help her relax ) that was a long time ago but things do change )

Pace not medically qualified just interested ))

[gingernut]

Antibiotics is an interesting one, ever wondered why we haven't seen any new ones in the past twenty years ? (there's no money in it).

However,I'm not against primary prevention. It is, a hard sell convincing someone that they need to take a chemical, which could make them feel ill, the benefits of which can be hard to demonstrate. I try and focus on the outcome measures, rather than the chemistry.

If someone asked me how to prevent heart disease, I'd give them 3 answers:
-walk thirty minutes 5-6 times a week
-don't (or give up) smoking
-choose better parents

the other medical bit's are fiddling round the edges.

We're paid to give advice, based on the facts that we gain from the evidence. I'm happy to explore that evidence with you further if need be.

The decision to take the advice, however, is ultimately your own.

[Pace]

However, today it's a different story.

Numerous studies have linked these drugs to an array of debilitating side effects. Even the lacklustre American Food and Drug Administration (FDA) slapped a warning about the increased risk of type 2 diabetes on statins.

Memory loss, muscle pain, fatigue, liver dysfunction and kidney failure are a few more well-known side effects that are now associated with these drugs.

Why do you think your doctor is supposed to send you for liver and kidney function tests every year when you are taking statin drugs? It’s because these drugs can seriously harm those organs.

In fact, the website netdoctor.co.uk states the following: "It is very unusual for a patient to have symptoms of liver damage due to taking statins because if liver function tests are taken occasionally to check the liver enzymes, the problem is never allowed to develop to the stage where symptoms occur."

This means that your liver is indeed at risk when you take statin drugs... and that your doctor should send you for regular tests to stop the risk from getting out of hand and destroying your health.

Statin drugs have now even been linked to an INCREASED risk of cardiovascular disease and heart attacks! That's because these drugs deplete the most important muscle in your body of the essential nutrient CoQ10, to the point that it literally can break your heart.

And the benefits?

Well, one thing is certain, these drugs WILL lower your cholesterol — that's what they are designed to do.

But cholesterol is not the villain the mainstream is making it out to be. And that is a fact.

Instead it is an essential building block that you'll find in every cell of your body. It's essential for the synthesis of hormones and vitamin D and it helps with the formation of memories and normal brain function, to mention but a few of its essential functions.

In short, cholesterol is a natural occurring substance — produced in your liver — that your body NEEDS to function optimally.

So why on earth would anyone want to lower their cholesterol to ridiculously low levels? Especially when low cholesterol levels have been linked to numerous health problems, including decline in cognitive function, depression and suicidal thoughts.

If you have any doubts about taking these drugs, follow your gut instinct. And that's not because I'm saying so, but simply because evidence is piling up against the so-called benefits of these drugs.

The above are the sort of claims made some of it makes sense ? I can assure you I am not against the better of two evil theory with seriously ill patients but not sure on a preventive for mild indications and against these drugs being dished out to healthy individuals over 50
If the above is rubbish I wouldn't know but it's the sort of claims being thrown around

Pace ))

[gingernut]

I'd have to see their evidence, as such, it's just what it says it is, a claim.

It's easy to get hooked on the chemistry, the important aspect here is the outcome.

Do statins carry risk ? (Yes)
Can statins prevent heart attacks and strokes (Yes)
Do the benefits outweigh the risks (Yes)

[Radgirl]

Thanks Pace. I appreciate you have genuine concerns so lets look at your quote, given that you are my patient and I am advising statins either because

1 You are at high risk of cardiovascular death, or
2 I want you to consider the fact that in large multicentred controlled trials statins were shown to reduce the number of sudden deaths from strokes and heart attacks and that is the most likely reason you will die in your 50s or 60s

Diabetes: some statins are associated with an increased amount of diabetes, possibly due to making it happen earlier in an individual, others have the opposite effect. They are more expensive but the ones I take and prescribe.

Side effects: Memory loss is rare and reversible. We will monitor you for it if we remember. Muscle pain is common - we will stop and try another statin which usually works. Fatigue is normally part of this myalgia so ditto.

Liver failure: everyone should have a simple blood test to monitor the liver at a month, 6 months and then annually for 3 years. Late failure 'doesnt' occur. If the liver function tests are abnormal, we stop the statins and they go back to normal

Renal failure: this is the risk. Tremendously rare but happened to a colleague of mine who was poleaxed over a weekend. I take statins because the risk is minute and the benefit much more, but it is your choice

Increased cardiovascular risk: no I havent seen any paper suggesting this. CoQ10 is often added in the US and there is evidence this further reduces risk as low CoQ10 levels can see saw against the statin benefit, but bodies far more knowledgeable than me consider the actual benefit insignificant. But hey I will give you CoQ10 if you want it!

I am not eliminating cholesterol. The body has more than enough and no statin will lead to a deficiency. Yes if you eat a totally fat free diet some people will get bipolar disease, but you will continue to eat some cholesterol, except perhaps the fry up on sunday mornings. Or perhaps not.

So Pace my advice is to have a statin. One table each evening for the chance of posting on PPRuNE for many more years. I do so based on science not monetary gain, but you can walk out of my surgery without the prescription and we will remain good friends. Just please dont terrify the other patients with anecdotal mumbo jumbo or ask medicine to be abolished until every obscure paper is further researched because we might as well close down healthcare.

Next patient please

[gingernut]

The last paper I saw, suggested tfhe risk/benefit equation tipped at around 7% (risk of cardiac event in 10 years.)

The Government (UK) used to offer statins to those over 20% risk, but this was more to do with money than anything else.

They now offer it to those of risk of 10% and above.

[Gannet Driver]

If you are remotely concerned with Statins, one way or the other, I strongly suggest you read the article this link leads to.

Not light reading, and quite a lot of it, but give it a try

http://psychology.usf.edu/News/ExpertRevClinPharmacol2015StatisticalDeceptionInStatinResear ch.pdf

Mike

[Pace]

Gingernut

Problem with statistics is they can be tailored to suit the case ?
This link has been posted on the other Statin thread
I have little knowledge in my argument but maybe this will better suit to at least give patients a document to discuss with their GPS

http://psychology.usf.edu/News/ExpertRevClinPharmacol2015StatisticalDeceptionInStatinResear ch.pdf

[dirkdj]

Pace,


I will give you an example of how bigpharma tries to influence you by playing with numbers, supposing the numbers are correct in the first place. Who paid for the study?

Suppose I am selling lottery tickets.

You buy one ticket, I say; "Did you know that if you buy two, you just doubled your chances of winning?" Is this true, yes but only in relative numbers.

In absolute numbers, (if 10 million tickets are sold) your chances go up from 1/10000000 to 2/10000000.

If you look at the medical stats, you will see that they give all the positive effects as relative numbers (doubling your chances of winning the lottery) and all the side-effects as absolute numbers.

[slowjet]

Gosh. Lively and lovely debate but getting a bit heated if we (I assume pilots) take a prod at you (the medics). Rdgirl, stop taking the statin every evening & you might calm down, I really like Ginger's chill technique & picture. STRESS is the big thing. One Poster had a heart attack while telling us he was well within fitness criteria. But, was he stressed out of his brains for other reasons ?

We are not trying to terrify anyone, Radgirl. I think Gordomac's post was excellent. He was alluding to BALANCE. He demonstrated that well by shooting you down & complimenting you at the same time.(your humorous assessment).

Medics have their place and the excellent work is much appreciated. I think we (the pilots) are complaining about rather quick diagnosis, of course down the drug route & scant grasp of the physical damage being done.

Overviewing many posts, I don't think the Jury are out. Balance appears to favour the view that Statins are causing misery to many. The media chop & change with the latest view but do have cause to report on the latest news.

Oh & don't get me started on BMI !!!

Pilots get very worried (not terrified) when the evidence is in our faces. A bunch of my colleagues faced "enhanced" medical requirements in order to extend contracts to age 65 rather than 60. This was a Company requirement rather than a Regulatory Authority one. One, a poster on this forum, was one of several grounded for high blood/sugar & some were than diagnosed with type 2 D. Statins (over-subscribed in one case, nearly killed him.).

Another, after passing tests that would floor most NASA Space Cadet wanabees, got his Class one medical but wound up in intensive care a few weeks later and then died ! Don't know the causes or how he got his Class one but, really- , In your face stuff that made us all go into the Medical depts with suspicion.

Again, balance dear people. We (pilots) have the same respect for you (medics) as you have for us. We are commenting on valuable observation. Not "havin a go !" !

Gordomac, can I join you & Radgirl for that Drink ? I need to DESTRESS !
Ginge : Downloaded your pic & hanging it in the pub.

[Pace]

I hope it's an interesting debate and not too heated as have greatest respect for Radgirl and Gingernut and I do not have the knowledge they have only media induced concern and other sources which frankly make sense ! This is a small thread but even the reports from users past and present reinforce what is being said and claimed

[gingernut]

Thanks for the link PACE, I will read it, and try and critique it.

I've had a long day in tutorials with undergraduates, discussing the "health belief model."- it's one of these psychological conceptual models that academics love, but makes the heart of clinicians sink.

This one was quite interesting, and I was thinking of you guy's. It provides a framework that helps us (them) explore perceived severity, perceived susceptibility, perceived benefits, perceived benefits, perceived barriers, cues to action and self efficacy of a health promotion behaviour. This debate made it all seem a bit clearer.

Please don't apologise to us professionals, we enjoy the debate, and welcome your contributions.

On the evidence I've seen so far, I'm still advocating statins in those above 10% 10 year risk.

[AngioJet]

I think we could all do with a drink down the pub! There's only so much evidence either way and I can certainly understand the scepticism with which medicine and the lack of certainty therein is viewed. The problem is that medicine is inherently uncertain, you never really know until afterwards! As clinicians we can only give you the best available information and help you synthesise it in order for you to make an informed decision. Medicine thankfully isn't as paternalistic as it used to be and we as medical practitioners have to adapt, like it or not.

[Radgirl]

Thanks Mike, yes I have read it. Fantastic paper demonstrating the benefit of statins. Multiple massive studies proving 1 in 60 to 1 in 80 people who would have died every 2-3 years survived due to statins. Although most studies were in specific groups, if you apply it to the population of the US or UK you get some idea of the number of lives saved by these drugs that cost pennies. Sadly not everyone can tolerate them. and doctors need to monitor patients and only prescribe after informed consent.

Compare this with the billions of pounds spent trying to reduce road traffic deaths. There were just 1713 deaths in the UK in 2013. Cant prevent more than this but in reality deaths have risen slightly.

[Pace]

Radgirl

I do not see this study as supporting Statins but highly critical of how statistics have been manipulated to trick people and The medical world into believing Statins offer benefits to a greater number of people than they actually do!

The benefits appear to be to a far fewer number than the drug companies have claimed and the downsides far worse! Even the studies take maybe 2000 people and treat them as clones which of course they are not as are the reasons people may have elevated cholesterol ? So it is not clear on which specific people with what condition will benefit

We have to remember that it was not long ago that certain quarters where demanding that every healthy person over 50 should be put on Statins
I totally see your point that people with severe risk should have them as the better of two evils but as posted by many in this thread who have had very negative and damaging effects someone needs to come clean on these drugs for the confidence of the public.

Pace (not medically qualified)

[gingernut]

Problem with statistics is they can be tailored to suit the case ?

The NNT "numbers needed to treat," is always an interesting one, but probably needs to be taken in context of the "seriousness" of the outcome that we are trying to achieve (or indeed avoid).

The paper talks about the attempt of those with a vested interest, to try to pull the wool over our eyes, by attempting to "hide" or not report, detrimental date.

Known as "grey research" in the trade.

Guess that there still remains a difference between evidence of effect, no evidence of effect, evidence of no effect. :-)

[gingernut]

Anyway, here's another photo from Poldark land.....

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/gingernut123/DSC_0151_zps5aimuqss.jpg

[Pace]

Gingernut

It's nice to see I am not the only compulsive photographer here )) great shot again ))

Pace

[gingernut]

Check this out.....the pub looks empty, 'cos the elderly population of Charlestown looked on pprune, and decided not to take their statins......

Only kidding, it was because it was cold.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v617/gingernut123/DSC_0160_zpsiho04xkz.jpg

[Pace]

Nahh )) the pub was empty because they were ALL taking their Statins and couldn't remember where the pub was ))
Only joking )))

Pace

[gingernut]

It's Cornwall, their smr for IHD is quite low, not quite figured out why. :}

[gingernut]

Public Health Observatories - Search Results for Area: South West (http://www.apho.org.uk/resource/view.aspx?RID=50215&REGION=50157&SPEAR=)

[Pace]

Here we go again new claims on the use of statins

Taking statins may prevent flu vaccine from working, studies show | Daily Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3294474/Taking-statins-prevent-flu-vaccine-working-Findings-impact-public-health-campaigns-treatments-aimed-group-people.html)

Make your own judgement also note the comments on GPs starting to rebel against the official recommendation on statins due to what they are seeing on the ground amongst their patients
There is enough smoke around Statins that a fire is likely

GPs are refusing to give patients statins in defiance of NHS guidelines aimed at saving thousands of lives.
Prescription rates have barely increased since health watchdog Nice last year urged doctors to offer the pills to any patient deemed to have a 10 per cent risk of developing heart disease within the next decade. This meant an estimated 17 million adults would be eligible.
But many GPs admit they are disregarding the guidelines as they believe statins cause more harm than good. There are concerns over long-term side effects, which include muscle pain and type 2 diabetes.
Pulse magazine found a steady rise in prescription rates has stalled since the guidance was introduced. Dr Rubin Minhas, a GP who specialises in cardiology, said the guidance has ‘no credibility’ among doctors.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3294474/Taking-statins-prevent-flu-vaccine-working-Findings-impact-public-health-campaigns-treatments-aimed-group-people.html#ixzz3pyxsFk6C


Pace

[Radgirl]

We seem to be going round in circles on this, but then I note the provenance of the link:ok:

Today's Times has a very sensible letter setting out the risks and side effects in a scientific manner and noting that in properly controlled studies there is little evidence of side effects in a population group (ie we are not saying nobody has a problem, just that the frequency is low). This letter is written by an academic

Weighing up the benefits of taking statins | The Times (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/letters/article4599744.ece)

It is followed by two letters which are neither scientific nor IMHO rational making the opposite claim

I thought of this thread as I read them!:ugh:

[onetrack]

The Australian ABC Catalyst program recently ran a documentary, entitled "Too Much Medicine". It's a rather thought-provoking program.
Bottom line is the vast profits to be made from producing drugs that are supposed to keep people well, rather than producing drugs that cure really sick people.
Really sick people mostly just die, and the market for the drugs ends - therefore the market for drugs for people that are otherwise well - but who just might develop some problem later in life - is just too attractive for the pharmaceutical companies to ignore.
We're talking about a pharmaceutical industry that just keeps growing in leaps and bounds - and for which industry, the estimated income by 2020 will exceed US$1 TRILLION.

Catalyst program - Too Much Medicine (http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/4339690.htm)

One point brought up in the documentary was the recommendation in the U.K. that the percentage of "at-risk" heart-disease patients who were to be prescribed statins, be reduced to 10% from 20%.
However, a survey of U.K. doctors found that 2/3rds would ignore the recommendation, and still prescribe statins at the 20% rate.
The simple term for this is over-medication, and I personally believe this is very much a recent phenomenon - but a growing one, and a concerning one.

[Pace]

That is a major problem and takes us full circle on this thread.
Not long ago there were studies that were promoting Statins not just to risk people but to all people over the age of 50, it was the wonder drug for health for all

You have to question the motivation behind the statistics used which can be constructed and manipulated to make a case.

Then you read real reports from ordinary people even on this thread reporting negative life changing side effects which are brushed aside or ridiculed that no wonder there is lack of trust on the advice being given by even authoritative sources.

I remember a few years ago with the flu scare 100,000s of thousands of people would die in the UK and the government panic bought Tamiflu on medical scientific advice they were given. There was even a rip off market for these drugs with people paying a fortune to protect their families by buying on line.

The flu turned out no worse than a normal winter flu and all was forgotten other than the fact that the government had stock piled £2 billion in drugs who's actual effectiveness then came under question.

Even GPs are now not following guidelines on Statins so this points to a lack of trust on the accuracy of the directives they are given and the statistical claims which don't match what they see on the ground

Radgirl your contributions are much appreciated and respected. You defend Statins but even you must know that at least there is something wrong in the communication trust chain which needs addressing.
If we cannot trust the information from our own GPs and in turn our own GPs cannot trust the information they are given? Surely there has to be a problem somewhere

http://psychology.usf.edu/News/ExpertRevClinPharmacol2015StatisticalDeceptionInStatinResear ch.pdf
Pace

[dirkdj]

I have just received the news that my mother is diagnosed with Alzheimer's. I found this recent article of interest: A Recipe for Alzheimer's Disease (http://www.spacedoc.com/articles/a-recipe-for-alzheimers)

[Pace]

DirkD

There are already claims on Statins causing memory loss
If the above article is soundly based that is a very serious damnation of Statins and the knowledge and way cholesterol works in the body ?

Pace

[Radgirl]

Dirkdj

I am sorry about your mother but it would be a travesty of science to suggest the cause is statins, assuming she has been taking them.

This is not a peer reviewed paper but a blog on an unknown site making claims about stem cells, referencing other papers which look at single relativities. You simply cannot put them together to create a hypothesis. I wouldn't even go as far as Pace and give the blog the credibility of a claim.

In fact there is some evidence that people taking statins have a lower incidence of some cerebral degenerative changes.

The Internet has been fantastic at enabling the general public in medicine as other fields, but just as that advert for an aircraft at an unbelievable price might just be a scam from a nice friendly man in Africa, so may some medical claims on the web also need to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Pace]

Radgirl

I am not medically qualified to judge whether this report is a load of rubbish or not, have not seen it until it was posted here but if there is any truth to it then it's a very serious claim with serious consequences and probably the next DM media release

What really surprises me are that there are damning reports that come out and are published through the media for the consumption of the unknowing public

Surely Statins are a multi $ billion income to the large drug companies ?
I am very surprised that the courts are not inundated with claims against the media who publish such false information ( If the drug companies consider them false) and the source of that information which must be damaging those drug company profits!

Yet there appears to be nothing but claims, counter claims of their safety based on dubious data, statistics and science from both sides?

Or the science is so incomplete that no one really knows how to make a legal challenge against some of these claims ?
Cholesterol and its workings in the body are not fully understood? Just lowering A without realising the consequences to B, C, D, E and F is an incomplete science setting a playing field for claim counter claim etc.

A failed court challenge could have a serious impact and maybe that is why there appear to be no such challenges only claims counter claims and dubious data and statistics and science where the public and may I say some GPs no longer believe what they are told but will always support their fears unless those fears are removed by complete science and knowledge and that is your biggest problem

Pace

[Radgirl]

Pace

I did not use the word rubbish, but you are right: it is a real mess, and the general public are bombarded with conflicting information.

Most statins are now generic, and dirt cheap so there is little profit in them. No big profits worth court action for even if you could sue, but note this woman hasnt actually said statins are dangerous. In fact I cant see she has used the word statin!! She has merely quoted lots of possible related mechanisms around cholesterol and left your imagination to tie it all together. Its similar to saying that we dont use lead in aircraft paint so we dont stop corrosion, so all aircraft have corrosion, so all airliners are about to suffer pressure hull failure etc etc.

This type of blog together with anecdotal comments about side effects are not science. No we dont know all subcellular mechanisms - when we do we will cure all cancer - but we do know cholesterol is a cause of many premature deaths. Most of my friends who know far more about it than me - academics, cardiologists and epidemiologists - take statins based on the science. Overworked target driven GPs mostly seem understandably to retire early so the failure to spend time to pull in more well patients and persuade them to take a pill may not reflect the GPs views on the benefits of the drug.

The drug industry has skeletons in the cupboard - Tamiflu as you rightly pointed out was over hyped it is claimed due to an inadequacy of the licensing process which is now being addressed. But statins are old drugs and after millions of prescriptions the chances of the risk benefit ratio being turned on its head by new data are slim.

So it is a personal choice

[Pace]

Radgirl

Fear is probably one of the most intense driving forces known to mankind. I am sure your GP surgeries are full of patients with little wrong with them who come to you to have those fears removed? They convince themselves they have cancer and get into such a state that they are almost writing out their wills when there is nothing much wrong with them

It was the same with Tamiflu I can remember seeing one web site offering a small pack of pills for £100 so panicked were the population. Even the government stockpiled 2 billion of the stuff on the then medical advice

I think you must agree maybe with the expansion of social media and the internet that there is now a serious problem of trust which has developed and is not being correctly addressed?

Pace

[dirkdj]

I see the word 'statin' mentioned several times in the article I mentioned as well as 'too little cholesterol in the brain' (Alzheimer). Since when is high cholesterol an illness? I thought is was there to protect us because the body makes cholesterol as it needs it to fight inflammation as a precursor to cortisol.

[cavortingcheetah]

Some years ago a specialist surgeon I knew and who is now the dearly departed, said more or less the following words to someone else I know.
'Your cholesterol is 7.5 and I was thinking that you should go on to a trial of 5mg Crestor daily to see if that will bring your rather high level down to something less fur raising and potentially lethal. However, you've just reminded me that you eat steak by the 1/2 kg, chocolate by the 1/2 kg and ice cream by the l. Because I know that you will totally ignore my dietary recommendations, I'm going to put you on 10mg a day. Then you can eat and drink what you like and your cholesterol will decrease to within acceptable limits and your arteries will slowly, over time, open up.
Thus was it so!
This is an excellent example of medicine being made to successfully serve the man, leading to a state of dietary bliss with no collateral damage worth a fig, Newton or otherwise.'

[Pace]

dirk

very much a case of A is high reduce A with drugs and pat ourselves on the back because A has come down but we really don't know the effects of reducing A on B,C,D,E and F because the science is incomplete and also because we think everyone is a clone rather than individual with different make ups

Pace

[cavortingcheetah]

Nearly eighty years ago, when the UK NHS came into being, one could argue that for the purpose of that NHS, all people were clones. Today however, with the wonderful advances provided by generations of enlightened British educationalists and social spending on the masses, it is reasonable to presume that some form of general intelligence and adaptive inquisitiveness has trickled down through to the bottoms of those people who seem most to benefit from a socialist, if relatively humane system of medicine.
The NHS of today has perforce to treat people as though they were clones. The beast is top heavy and much of that overweight is old and past its time. But both in evolution and in fact, it should not be the responsibility of a communal medical service to spoon feed each and every patient according to his precise bespoke needs. There should be the potential for some assumption of vicarious responsibility on the part of the erstwhile clone at the end of the medical teaspoon. In spite of the appearances generated in many hospital waiting areas up and down the country, there is no reason to suppose that patients have been lobotomised at birth although it seems reasonable to suppose that such is the appearance, presented at the time of consultation, to many a poor benighted medical practitioner.

[Pace]

When I referred to clones it wasn't so much directed at people being treated as individuals but in some of the statistical evidence supplied which may look at a mass of people as clones rather than individuals.

We probably all know some people who get away with murder in their lifestyles and live to a ripe old age while others who do everything right drop dead at 50

Cholesterol and its interaction in the body is not fully understood and depending on make up it may be perfectly normal for one individual to have high readings
Clone that guy with a blanket your reading must be X because thats a number we determine maybe reducing that guys cholesterol level below a level that particular individual needs for his specific makeup. By reducing it its possible that something else down the chain will go wrong.
Why? Because we don't fully understand Cholesterol and its workings and interactions.

the same could be claimed for HBP for some it maybe normal and a need for them to have higher readings ? Recent studies have shown that reducing that HBP is increasing dementia in some. I know of one continental family who suffered through generations with HBP yet they all lived into their late 90s before all the HBP reducing drugs were available.
Again HBP its cause and mechanism is not fully understood and hence why if the science is incomplete we do not know that reducing A will not adversely effect B C D or E or the effects of the drugs used on other parts of the body to achieve those target figures.

I am not medically qualified and really stress that but have to admit I have always found the subject very interesting. While I agree people with serious illness it is a better of two evils but am wary of mass medication of relatively healthy people and the changing attitude over time when the science becomes more complete. Hence my referral to clones was not directed at the way patients are treated with kindness and individuality which is very important but more at the blanket way certain targets are required to be met by use of drugs and achieving those targets without fully understanding the effects and reaction throughout the system especially on reasonably healthy individuals.

That is not even considering the damage and side effects those drugs cause elsewhere

Addendum

There has to be a differential between drugs used for short term and drugs used long term especially on relatively fit people. We All take a Nurofen for toothaches or a headache or antibiotics to help remove an infection so its really lifetime drugs which are under the spotlight and where side effects which can be life changing in a negative way or damaging in other ways which we need to look at with caution

Pace

[slowjet]

And in yesterday's UK Daily Mail, yet another report of very serious side effects suffered by the author. Claims to have been a wheelchair case after long suffering but when he ditched this awful drug, recovered very quickly. I love Amy Winehouse's song................"Dr prescribed me statins, I said Noo Noo Nooooooo !!!"

[dirkdj]

If Saddam would have had statins, they would have called it weapons of mass destruction, instead he only had scuds.

I saw this yesterday: https://youtu.be/XykVFMd7S-c

[Bad medicine]

This thread is getting close to the end of its usefulness. Happy for reasoned discussion to continue, but not just repetitive anecdotes from dubious sources and n=1 case reports. ALL drugs have side-effects, worse in some people than others. It is ALWAYS up to the therapeutic partnership between prescriber and patient to determine the risk/benefit ratio. Nobody forces patients to take these medications.

Cheers,

BM

[Pace]

Bad Medicine

Yes agreed all that can be said has been said FOR NOW :E That is the nature of this thread it resurrects when new claims come to the fore.

As an ordinary member of the public we should make informed decisions but informed means from a position of knowledge and accurate information and maybe thats where the problem lies and why this thread has been so lively as there is a certain amount of suspicion around these drugs an that has not been addressed?

Pace

[gingernut]

Is this thread still open ?

[cavortingcheetah]

If blood still flows through the arteries then the statins are doing their appointed task.

[Pace]

First long term study on breast Cancer and statins has found that women who have been taking Statins for a decade or more have twice the risk of contracting two common types of invasive Breast cancer any validity to this ?

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/10/1923.full

Just one of many reports a more restrained one on these findings


Pace

[Pace]

Scientists last night hailed a new drug which can cut bad cholesterol levels by half without the bad side effects of Statins
The drug is called Repatha

It is now revealed that 7 million take Statins and 1.4 million have had to terminate due to side effects of Statins, basically 1 in 5 and that is not considering the damage done long term by Statins of those who keep taking them

At least there now seems to be acceptance of the bad side effects of Statins rather than the head in the sand defence of the drugs.

We can only hope this new drug meets the expectations it promises and is not another devil in the disguise of an angel drug

Pace

[Pace]

I don't think anyone has questioned them for people with serious disease as the benefits outweigh the negatives.
The Article quoted 1 in 5 coming off because they couldn't tolerate the side effects so I presume you are in the 1 to 4 bracket, some who will tolerate the effects as the better of two evils.
They were being dished out to relatively fit people and that was the big ?
But better if they do develop a kinder drug for you too whether it will meet its expectations is another question

Pace