Statins

[Doon frae Troon]

Any forummers take them or know/advise about them.

Our GP has been trying to get Mrs Doon to take them for the last ten years.
She has resisted as she is not convinced they are right for her.

Her cholesterol is 7.9. BP a bit above average.
Weight/BP/diet/excercise etc has not changed over 10 years and she is fairly fit for a 64 year old.

 

[Pipetwister]

Yes I take them. My cholesterol was about the same and is now down to where it should be. Diet and exercise etc did not make a scrap of difference.

 

[chrisd]

I play a lot of golf with a guy who wife is a GP and she says that they are really a boon to the health service and the people who take them really do benefit and, providing you have the correct ones, they do their job

 

[wrighty1874]

I've been on them for a few years.Level was 5.5, not excessively high but my dad had a heart attack at46 so was advised as a precaution. Level is 4.0now.My doctor believes everybody should be on them.

 

[Break90]

I'd be very tempted to take the advice of a trained medical expert.........

edit: unless Mrs do on happens to be a trained medical expert.........

 

[SocketRocket]

Just to confuse things this article has a contrary view of how cholesterol affects older people.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

 

[Doon frae Troon]

I'd be very tempted to take the advice of a trained medical expert.........

edit: unless Mrs do on happens to be a trained medical expert.........

Thanks for advice from all, Mrs Doon was quite concerned about the side effects when they first came out.

She had a fierce dose of chemo and radiotherapy 25 years ago and was lucky to survive.
Tomoxifem for 7 years pushed her weight up from 9st to 10.5.
She is not a 'qualified' medical expert but does look into things very carefully.:lol:

PS .....anyone suffer side effects ?
She has talked it through with her GP, who is great, and the GP does not seem to be insisting/pushing her to take them.

 

[Hobbit]

I've been on them since '92. I have blood tests pretty regularly to check liver function. There are several different statins, and sometimes the GP might change to one of those depending on any side effects. The first type didn't suit me, but thankfully so early in the regime the doc was insisting on blood test every two weeks - its now every 6 months.

If he says go on them, I'd be inclined to take his advice - he is the expert.

Below link might help.

http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Cholesterol-lowering-medicines-statins/Pages/Side-effects.aspx

 

[Tarkus1212]

I've been on Atorvastatin since July 2012 when I had a heart attack. My cholesterol is at 2.9 but it was never over 5 anyway. No noticeable side effects and the only downside is that grapefruit is off the menu.

 

[Maninblack4612]

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/the-great-cholesterol-con/

Ethan thinks the author is a crank but, according to the book, he uses statistics from the official research to show:

1. Women with high cholesterol live longer

2. High cholesterol is not an indicator of the possibility of a heart attack.

3. People on statins who have had a heart attack have slightly fewer further attacks but don't live any longer overall.

He's not the only one who thinks this but there is huge pressure on GPs from drug companies to prescribe statins.

Read the book & make up your own mind.

 

[wrighty1874]

I get cramp a bit but not too severe.Its one of the more common side effects.

 

[williamalex1]

I had severe cramps in both legs when taking Avarostatin then Simvistatin. My cholesterol level was 5.9. I now just take Benecol drink and watch my diet. My level is now 5.2. Blood pressure has always been on the side of normal.

 

[Ethan]

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/the-great-cholesterol-con/

Ethan thinks the author is a crank but, according to the book, he uses statistics from the official research to show:

1. Women with high cholesterol live longer

2. High cholesterol is not an indicator of the possibility of a heart attack.

3. People on statins who have had a heart attack have slightly fewer further attacks but don't live any longer overall.

He's not the only one who thinks this but there is huge pressure on GPs from drug companies to prescribe statins.

Read the book & make up your own mind.

Statistics is a complicated business and with large data sets you can always trawl through and find anomalies and odd results. Statisticians know this and there are many technical terms for this effect.

It is very foolish, therefore, for a lay person to offer an interpretation of this complicated data set and consequently advice on life saving treatment to someone they don't know based on a book they bought on the internet, the veracity of which they can't possibly determine.

By the way, I wouldn't say Malcolm is a crank. He is, however, someone who sells books, and they sell better based on shock headlines and controversial views. He has obviously managed to attract at least one gullible buyer here. In contrast, I am not selling anything and have no financial interest in statins.

So, to get back to the real world, it is settled science that there is an association between high LDL to HDL ration and heart disease. it is also OK to abbreviate this to as association with cholesterol. It is also settled that statins have been proven in many large clinical trials based on reviews of 'the official research' by experts in regulatory authorities throughout the world.

They reduce cholesterol in a well understood manner, but they may also have other effects based on an effect on the walls of blood vessels. Taken together, they have an effect on the risk of heart disease. The greatest effect obviously occurs in people with a high risk of heart disease.

In terms of adverse effects, they are generally well tolerated. Adverse effects include effects on the liver (so you will need regular blood tests) and muscle pain. If severe muscle pain occurs, stop taking them and consult your doctor. There were lurid reports in The Daily Mail and other unreliable sources based on a recent BMJ paper citing his levels of adverse effects. There was rather less coverage in the same rags when the paper was withdrawn by the BMJ due to gross errors, not necessarily entirely accidental, in the paper.

 

[Foxholer]

Just to confuse things this article has a contrary view of how cholesterol affects older people.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

I'm not qualified to comment on the specifics, but this seems a likely example of another effect of such statistical analysis - it's quite possible/likely that those that survive to the 80 or 85 that the survey is dealing with have passed the critical period where heart attack is the such a major cause of death - and it's the general degradation of other organs that is dominant. Basically, they are dying from other problems!

A more obvious example (though negatively) of (a similar sort of) effect is that by reducing child mortality, life expectancy increases - yet nothing has been done that affects those aged 15 and upwards - so their life expectancy hasn't actually been changed at all!

However, it would be interesting to know what the dominant causes of those deaths were. There may also be a positive link to statins in there - as there may have been statins users (presumably with low cholesterol) in that sample!

LDL&S in action?

 

[Maninblack4612]

Just to confuse things this article has a contrary view of how cholesterol affects older people.

http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/...ith-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

Interesting comment here, echoes what Dr. Kendrick says in his book:

"An abnormal lipid profile is the body’s sign that the lipid system is responding to something. What is that something? Like a kid with fever, do you give the kid aspirin to lower the fever and go back to bed? Of course not, you have to find the cause of the fever, UTI? Pneumonia? The same with an abnormal lipid profile. Don’t give a statin to lower it like giving asprin for fever, find out what the hell is causing it. Could be carbs, could be inflammation, or things we haven’t even thought of yet. Oh, well, I am just a skeptical old man"

My wife has high cholesterol and chronic back pain and I think the two are related. We both eat the same, she drinks less than me and is less stressed. However, my cholesterol is always normal. A while ago I had a very sore knee & went to my GP, who sent me for an X Ray and blood test. The blood test showed high cholesterol for the first time ever. The knee eventually got better and, in the interests of medical science, I requested another blood test. It came back with normal cholesterol readings. Not statistically significant, I know, but makes you think.

It is my understanding that nobody fully understands what cholesterol, which is present in every tissue in the body, including the brain, really does and that the "high" & "low" figures used by the medical profession are largely arbitrary.

I know what one medical expert thinks of Dr. Kendrick's book & his ideas, but nobody, as far as I know, has published anything to indicate how he is misinterpreting the statistics. All I know is that there are lots of GPs recommending statins to patients when they have carried out no examination of the research themselves, some blindly believing what the statin manufacturers tell them.

 

[Ethan]

Interesting comment here, echoes what Dr. Kendrick says in his book:

"An abnormal lipid profile is the body’s sign that the lipid system is responding to something. What is that something? Like a kid with fever, do you give the kid aspirin to lower the fever and go back to bed? Of course not, you have to find the cause of the fever, UTI? Pneumonia? The same with an abnormal lipid profile. Don’t give a statin to lower it like giving asprin for fever, find out what the hell is causing it. Could be carbs, could be inflammation, or things we haven’t even thought of yet. Oh, well, I am just a skeptical old man"

My wife has high cholesterol and chronic back pain and I think the two are related. We both eat the same, she drinks less than me and is less stressed. However, my cholesterol is always normal. A while ago I had a very sore knee & went to my GP, who sent me for an X Ray and blood test. The blood test showed high cholesterol for the first time ever. The knee eventually got better and, in the interests of medical science, I requested another blood test. It came back with normal cholesterol readings. Not statistically significant, I know, but makes you think.

It is my understanding that nobody fully understands what cholesterol, which is present in every tissue in the body, including the brain, really does and that the "high" & "low" figures used by the medical profession are largely arbitrary.

I know what one medical expert thinks of Dr. Kendrick's book & his ideas, but nobody, as far as I know, has published anything to indicate how he is misinterpreting the statistics. All I know is that there are lots of GPs recommending statins to patients when they have carried out no examination of the research themselves, some blindly believing what the statin manufacturers tell them.

I am afraid you don't know very much then. I could reply in detail, but it is quicker to simply say that a large body of peer reviewed literature, published in the leading medical journals say precisely the opposite of him.

And Malcolm has published precisely 0 clinical studies on cholesterol. He is not an expert in that subject, and perhaps not in anything else. He has published and republished his opinion and theories, though. That is not really the same at all.


Try the following:
1: Google 'correlation is not causation'.

2: Google 'the plural of anecdote is not data'.

 

[SocketRocket]

I am afraid you don't know very much then. I could reply in detail, but it is quicker to simply say that a large body of peer reviewed literature, published in the leading medical journals say precisely the opposite of him.

And Malcolm has published precisely 0 clinical studies on cholesterol. He is not an expert in that subject, and perhaps not in anything else. He has published and republished his opinion and theories, though. That is not really the same at all.


Try the following:
1: Google 'correlation is not causation'.

2: Google 'the plural of anecdote is not data'.

Do you have any experience of Dr John Briffa and his views on Cholesterol and Statins. If you have I would be genuinely interested in your views.

Here is a link to one of his articles on the subject: http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/28/...he-evidence-base-for-statins-and-other-drugs/

 

[Golfmmad]

Make no mistake, statins do help reduce heart attacks and also help to save lives. If you have "Familial" high cholesterol, which means it's passed on from one of your parents, then chances are that medication - statins - are the only way to effectively reduce cholesterol to a safe level ie: around 4.0.

Much has been written about whether there is a need to take statins at all, and the so called adverse side effects. As Ethan has already mentioned, "Most are well tolerated".
Certainly in my case, when over 25 years ago my Brother suffered a heart attack, his consultant advised that his brothers and sisters all get checked out for cholesterol levels, it was discovered that my level was a whopping 11.3!

Back in those days I was invited to attend a clinic specially set up for people with high levels of cholesterol.
I underwent lots and lots of blood tests for months and months, even one time going on a 24 fast to get a true level. Eventually I got to the right amount of milligrams and statins to suit me. I get checked out every year now and my level is between 4.2 - 4.6. The only real side effects I have is the usual muscle aches from time to time and the occasional bit of cramp. I have to say that I do seem to tolerate statins pretty well and have just got used to them over time.

So to finish, it's statins every day for me and have much to thank them for.

:thup:

 

[SocketRocket]

Make no mistake, statins do help reduce heart attacks and also help to save lives. If you have "Familial" high cholesterol, which means it's passed on from one of your parents, then chances are that medication - statins - are the only way to effectively reduce cholesterol to a safe level ie: around 4.0.

Much has been written about whether there is a need to take statins at all, and the so called adverse side effects. As Ethan has already mentioned, "Most are well tolerated".
Certainly in my case, when over 25 years ago my Brother suffered a heart attack, his consultant advised that his brothers and sisters all get checked out for cholesterol levels, it was discovered that my level was a whopping 11.3!

Back in those days I was invited to attend a clinic specially set up for people with high levels of cholesterol.
I underwent lots and lots of blood tests for months and months, even one time going on a 24 fast to get a true level. Eventually I got to the right amount of milligrams and statins to suit me. I get checked out every year now and my level is between 4.2 - 4.6. The only real side effects I have is the usual muscle aches from time to time and the occasional bit of cramp. I have to say that I do seem to tolerate statins pretty well and have just got used to them over time.

So to finish, it's statins every day for me and have much to thank them for.

:thup:

If your levels are normal then thats good. I think the other view is whether it's better to see what is causing peoples high levels and try to manage them through diet and lifestyle rather than medication if possible.

There is a new wave of thinking emerging in the medical world that suggests that the information we have been given since the 1970s regarding low fat diet is incorrect and sugars, both refined and unrefined like cereals and other carbohydrates are the real causes of many conditions like diabetes and arterial blockage, also the great increase of obese people.

 

[Golfmmad]

If your levels are normal then thats good. I think the other view is whether it's better to see what is causing peoples high levels and try to manage them through diet and lifestyle rather than medication if possible.

But that's just it, managing high "Familial" cholesterol through diet and lifestyle is just not enough.
Someone with a raised level, fine, but not dangerously high.