Statins Bad press
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Pace; 1st Nov 2015 at 09:34.
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Está servira para distraerle.
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.'
'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.'
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Está servira para distraerle.
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.
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.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Last edited by Pace; 2nd Nov 2015 at 12:58.
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: London
Posts: 391
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 !!!"
Join Date: Jul 2001
Location: Belgium
Posts: 486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
I saw this yesterday: https://youtu.be/XykVFMd7S-c
Moderator
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
Cheers,
BM
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad Medicine
Yes agreed all that can be said has been said FOR NOW
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
Yes agreed all that can be said has been said FOR NOW
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/22/10/1923.full
Just one of many reports a more restrained one on these findings
Pace
Last edited by Pace; 1st Mar 2016 at 08:15.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
