statins again

[Jim Hawkins]

Anyone taken in by the renewed pharmaceutical industry plug for statins should first read "The Great Cholesterol Con" by Dr Malcolm Kendrick.

Jim Hawkins

[Huge]

Anyone who gets their medical information from books with sensationalist titles like this one is an idiot.

[Bob Henson]

There are plenty of non-sensational sources that suggest that the excessive use of statins is doing more harm than good. The problem seems to me to be that the industry grabs all the research showing the undoubted benefits of statins and exaggerates them out of all proportion. They neglect the fact that many people would much rather face the (very small) extra risk than suffer the horrible unwanted effects, and that those effects might even persuade the medical profession to cut statin usage if they took them more seriously. Their thinking is governed by covering their medical arses against being sued by slavishly following statistical dictates instead of practising medicine by listening to their patients.

[GB]

The only side effect I noticed at the time I started statins was that my feet became cold at night. That was solved by wearing socks in bed, so I could hardly classify that as "horrible unwanted effects", although it's obviously not very romantic. It may even just be a coincidence, as leaving the statins off for 4 weeks made no difference.

[Bob Henson]

It depends on dosage, the individual, and a couple of dozen other factors. From listening to my patients over many years, and from my own experience, I can assure you that most people hate them. Muscle pain, weakness and repeated night cramp (the latter related to your cold feet) are the most common complaints.

[Jim Hawkins]

Rubbish. Try reading it. Its author is a highly respected Scots GP.

"In yet another blow to the claimed benefits of statin drugs, newly published research has found that statin drug use leads to accelerated coronary artery and aortic artery calcification, both of which greatly contribute to cardiovascular disease and mortality. The new study comes on top of findings that led the FDA to mandate adding "diabetes risk" to the warning label of statin drugs.

Statin drugs cause problems they are marketed to solve:

The latest discovery makes it clear that statin drugs not only carry a significant risk of developing type 2 diabetes, they also accelerate the cardiovascular complications associated with diabetes. This has to be particularly disconcerting to the pharmaceutical companies since they have been marketing statins to reduce cardiovascular morbidity and mortality, not accelerate it.

According to Dr. Arthur Agatston, cardiologist, coronary calcium is the best predictor of who will have a heart attack and who will not. A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that coronary calcium was six times more accurate in predicting an impending heart attack than the risk factor of a family history of coronary heart disease.

In the new research, just published in the journal Diabetes Care, researchers looked at patients with type 2 diabetes and advanced atherosclerosis and found that coronary artery calcification "was significantly higher in more frequent statin users than in less frequent users." Further, the researchers looked at a subgroup of participants who were not initially receiving statins and found that "progression of both CAC [coronary artery calcification] and AAC [aortic artery calcification] was significantly increased in frequent statin users."

The initial premise used to market statin drugs was that they lowered cholesterol and cholesterol led to clogged arteries and heart attacks. That premise has been roundly discredited and the fact is that there has never been a single study which has proven that increased cholesterol levels cause heart attacks or other coronary problems.

Increasingly, it is being demonstrated that inflammation is the real culprit in arterial plaque. As Natural News recently reported, regardless of the amount of cholesterol in the blood, inflammation will result in the depositing of cholesterol to repair arteries damaged by inflammation.

See:

One of the worst effects of statin drugs is to lower the natural production of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), a compound which is absolutely vital to optimal health and is particularly important for muscle health. The heart just happens to be the largest muscle in the body.

Overall, statin drugs have been linked to more than 300 side-effects, including weakening of the heart muscle. The results of this latest negative study on statin drugs may prove to ultimately be a final nail in the coffin of these dangerous drugs - though given the billions of dollars in profits the drugs rake in, we can expect to see the pharmaceutical industry fight tooth and nail to keep the drugs on the market."

Jim Hawkins

[GB]

You'd expect that correlation, even if statins are highly effective, as doctors dole them out to patients judged most at risk of a heart attack.

As I understand it, statins have a positive effect in reducing inflammation. At least, Atorvastatin the one I take does.

You can take supplements though.

[Davey]

Precisely what I experienced. I halved my dose, then told the doc., who was ok with that.

[Capitol]

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but weren't all the trials done on people under 65?

I understand that the latest death figures show that if your choresterol levels are below 5.4 for men or 6.2 for women, you die sooner!

[Huge]

Utter cack. Your sample size is tiny and biased and not blind in any way. Your initial attitude is that "statins suck and this is why" and then you extrapolate that to "most people hate them". You don't even know if most people take them.

Why not leave science to scientists, eh?

[Huge]

Oh, I expect it is.

No need. I already know what it will say, from the title.

Get back to me when you've a cite to the BMJ or JLR to a properly refereed paper.

[Capitol]

You appear to have missed the point that the scientists are employed by their company to produce a marketable product. Most drug companies refuse to publish the results of their trials, so the results claimed cannot be verified. The published results are produced by a set of management decisions and all too often leave out the unpleasant bits. The scientists are contract bound not to disagree with published results.

A practicing GP who does his job properly, has a big enough sample size to have a very informed opinion as to what works and what doesn't. As the US doctors are now questioning whether the use of statins is worthwhile, shouldn't we be prepared to ask the same questions?

[whisky-dave]

There was something about this on LBC this morning but I had to leave before it came on the Nick Ferrari show about ~8am

[Jim Hawkins]

Reducing cholesterol level can be dangerous.

[Nightjar]

On 12/02/2014 12:06, Capitol wrote: ...

Mine have never been that high, even without statins.

Colin Bignell

[Capitol]

Well, those are the average figures, so I guess you have a chance!

[Bob Henson]

I am one. Fifty years as a pharmacist makes my sample size quite high - I was around before statins were, so I've been in from day one. I worked in the pharmaceutical industry for several years too. Your offensive comments are therefore treated with the contempt they deserve and you are consigned to my kill-file.

Plonk.

[Another John]

I've never yet had to take them, though people close to me have done.

I found it particularly difficult to form a view after watching the excellent Michael Moseley in one of his programmes recently, when he spoke to two "world expert level" medical scientists on this subject, who each put a diametrically opposed view:

As so often when watching one of these pseudo-medical programmes I came away thinking "Tch. I could have been doing something *useful* for the last hour!".

John

[Jim Hawkins]

Your cholesterol is there because every cell in your body needs it. It is not there to facilitate a totally unnecessary enrichment of the pharmaceutical industry. Leave it alone and forget about it.

Jim Hawkins

[dennis]

Unless you make a habit of asking your customers what they are suffering from without knowing they are statins and then doing a bit of data processing you are likely to bias your results even if you don't know you are doing it. If you look for a specific set of side effects you are likely to find them and ignore the ones that don't show the side effects.