Experience with Statins

Status
Not open for further replies.
DaveB said:
I'm on a medium dose of Atorvastatin with no problems, but many do have real problem with statins such as my wife. Only take statins if your blood test lipids panel shows your various lipids ratios are bad; otherwise refuse unless there is a very good reason. Never allow your total cholesterol to go below 4 with statins as the body needs cholesterol and it can be harmful to not have enough in the body for repairs.
Click to expand...
Totally agree! No one seems to realise that a cholesterol level below 4 is harmful. I took statins for a couple of years, had terrible memory problems on them. No wonder! The brain needs cholesterol to work properly, it's the building block of every cell in your body and in particular the brain.

Hubby had hideous muscle problems. We both took ourselves off them and his muscle pains ceased almost immediately. I regret to say that to some extent my memory hasn't returned to what it was. I have always been highly articulate with a very extensive vocabulary, but now I sometimes have to really search for the right word when speaking or writing. I've done a great deal of research on the subject and frankly will never take a statin again. Try Googling Malcolm Kendrick, zoe Harcombe and Thincs.org.
 
DaveB said:
I'm on a medium dose of Atorvastatin with no problems, but many do have real problem with statins such as my wife. Only take statins if your blood test lipids panel shows your various lipids ratios are bad; otherwise refuse unless there is a very good reason. Never allow your total cholesterol to go below 4 with statins as the body needs cholesterol and it can be harmful to not have enough in the body for repairs.
Click to expand...
I never realised that, I am on 10mg atorvastatin and last cholesterol was 3.6.
No effects from taking them though.
 
Pattidevans said:
Totally agree! No one seems to realise that a cholesterol level below 4 is harmful. I took statins for a couple of years, had terrible memory problems on them. No wonder! The brain needs cholesterol to work properly, it's the building block of every cell in your body and in particular the brain.

Hubby had hideous muscle problems. We both took ourselves off them and his muscle pains ceased almost immediately. I regret to say that to some extent my memory hasn't returned to what it was. I have always been highly articulate with a very extensive vocabulary, but now I sometimes have to really search for the right word when speaking or writing. I've done a great deal of research on the subject and frankly will never take a statin again. Try Googling Malcolm Kendrick, zoe Harcombe and Thincs.org.
Click to expand...
I too have to search for the right word at times which I put down to my age (71). I am also very aware that my mum, nan, and both aunts started developing dementia at around this age. So I never associated it with taking statins until now. I try and keep my brain active with word, number and pattern recognition puzzles.
 
Some really good thoughts and insights on this thread.

Just a quick reminder that it’s fine to share individual experiences but it’s advisable not to adjust medication without first speaking to a member of your healthcare team.
 
DaveB said:
I'm on a medium dose of Atorvastatin with no problems, but many do have real problem with statins such as my wife. Only take statins if your blood test lipids panel shows your various lipids ratios are bad; otherwise refuse unless there is a very good reason. Never allow your total cholesterol to go below 4 with statins as the body needs cholesterol and it can be harmful to not have enough in the body for repairs.
Click to expand...
When Hunter-gatherers are studied around the world their cholesterol averages between 2.25 and 2.75. That’s taken to be the healthy level we should be at, since they’re living as nature intended and without any incidence of CVD which statins are intended to guard against in the ‘civilised’ West.
 
Burylancs said:
When Hunter-gatherers are studied around the world their cholesterol averages between 2.25 and 2.75. That’s taken to be the healthy level we should be at, since they’re living as nature intended and without any incidence of CVD which statins are intended to guard against in the ‘civilised’ West.
Click to expand...
And the expert consensus these days is that there are no harms and continued benefits to lowering LDL as far as possible. On average, a 20% CV risk reduction per 1 mmol/L reduction, no matter what the starting point, with no additional harms.
 
Eddy Edson said:
And the expert consensus these days is that there are no harms and continued benefits to lowering LDL as far as possible. On average, a 20% CV risk reduction per 1 mmol/L reduction, no matter what the starting point, with no additional harms.
Click to expand...
And they used to seriously believe that putting leeches on people cured fevers. Science moves on... pharmaceutical companies don't really want it to, at least not whilst statins are the cash cows.
 
What's going to assist greatly the mending of the neuron sheaths to the nerves in eg your brain etc then, with very very little LDL?

Yes OK we do get some memory problems as we age, but I'm sorry, it really shouldn't happen when you're 50 and whilst having a matey chat to your only sister (who is older than you so you've known her for ever) you totally forget her name. That finished me off. I only took two things at the time other than insulin one being a BP tablet and the other a statin and I tossed up which to try doing without, and it happened to be the statin. Plan was to try a month without one and just see what happened. What happened was, I'd started remembering things again - so it was a pity I hadn't tried stopping the damn things before I'd lost my job through keep omitting to do stuff I'd promised to do!

No way Pedro do I want to go there again so I haven't. We've all got to die of summat so if it's a heart attack or stroke, then so be it.
 
I don’t think it can be right that TC below 4 causes harm, because that is the target TC level for people with diabetes - and there would have been an extensive search of the published literature to define that level, which would have reported adverse events.

My personal (unqualified) opinion is that there must be a level of low LDL cholesterol which must cause difficulties, but I don’t know what that level would be.

I don’t buy the idea that LDL is inherently harmful as a substance and must be all but eradicated - because otherwise why would the body make it?

It feels a bit like blood glucose to me. There will be a range which is healthy... and potential harms either side of that.

Cholesterol is a perennial ‘hot potato’ on discussion forums, and feelings are strongly held on both sides. As a community we need to respect others personal choices, accept that the majority of science all points to controlling cholesterol being helpful, but also recognise that individual experiences are important.
 
trophywench said:
What's going to assist greatly the mending of the neuron sheaths to the nerves in eg your brain etc then, with very very little LDL?

Yes OK we do get some memory problems as we age, but I'm sorry, it really shouldn't happen when you're 50 and whilst having a matey chat to your only sister (who is older than you so you've known her for ever) you totally forget her name. That finished me off. I only took two things at the time other than insulin one being a BP tablet and the other a statin and I tossed up which to try doing without, and it happened to be the statin. Plan was to try a month without one and just see what happened. What happened was, I'd started remembering things again - so it was a pity I hadn't tried stopping the damn things before I'd lost my job through keep omitting to do stuff I'd promised to do!

No way Pedro do I want to go there again so I haven't. We've all got to die of summat so if it's a heart attack or stroke, then so be it.
Click to expand...
Hi TW, I seem to remember a post of yours in the past in which you said you had a urine infection at the time you were on statins and weren't sure whether your confusion was the result of that or the statin. Is my memory playing tricks on me ?
 
everydayupsanddowns said:
I don’t think it can be right that TC below 4 causes harm, because that is the target TC level for people with diabetes - and there would have been an extensive search of the published literature to define that level, which would have reported adverse events.

My personal (unqualified) opinion is that there must be a level of low LDL cholesterol which must cause difficulties, but I don’t know what that level would be.

I don’t buy the idea that LDL is inherently harmful as a substance and must be all but eradicated - because otherwise why would the body make it?

It feels a bit like blood glucose to me. There will be a range which is healthy... and potential harms either side of that.

Cholesterol is a perennial ‘hot potato’ on discussion forums, and feelings are strongly held on both sides. As a community we need to respect others personal choices, accept that the majority of science all points to controlling cholesterol being helpful, but also recognise that individual experiences are important.
Click to expand...
But as Churchill said., You can't be neutral between the Fire Brigade and the fire. You shouldn't allow Fake News and scaremongering about statins so much oxygen on a responsible Support Group.
 
Burylancs said:
But as Churchill said., You can't be neutral between the Fire Brigade and the fire. You shouldn't allow Fake News and scaremongering about statins so much oxygen on a responsible Support Group.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.
 
Burylancs said:
But as Churchill said., You can't be neutral between the Fire Brigade and the fire. You shouldn't allow Fake News and scaremongering about statins so much oxygen on a responsible Support Group.
Click to expand...

And equally it seems to me that you have to tread carefully when a gross over simplification of something is described as fake news.

The idea of taking an issue, simplifying it and then reporting it in an exaggerated fashion used to be confined to the printed press because it was a recognised way to sell newspapers and so bring in advertising revenue. With the growth in "social media" the simplify and exaggerate motif is everywhere you look. There is an element of truth in all that is said, but it is always far from the whole truth. I see a parallel with the used car salesman who will talk at great length about the colour of a car whilst ignoring the clouds of smoke coming from the exhaust.

So it is with the issues around cholesterol. Me, I've kept out of these discussions because the only thing I know about it is that I don't know enough about the ins and outs to make any useful contribution. One day I might spend some time to try and get to grips with all the issues and try and figure it out. Can't help but think that it should be possible to sort out a few broad principles with could used with appropriate caution. Until then I might ask questions but will refrain from comment because anything I might say is unlikely to be helpful.

Also, I don't think you should not be too rude about pharmaceutical companies. They are full of people like you and me and if you are rude about the company you are effectively saying that the staff are unthinking, money grabbing and irresponsible. Used to work in the Nuclear industry and the one thing the really irritated me was when a few unqualified people made a lot of critical noise about what I was doing. Apart from the fact that most of what was said was wrong, it implied that I, and the highly talented people I worked with, were stupid. We weren't.
 
Burylancs said:
Hi TW, I seem to remember a post of yours in the past in which you said you had a urine infection at the time you were on statins and weren't sure whether your confusion was the result of that or the statin. Is my memory playing tricks on me ?
Click to expand...
Yes - your memory is playing tricks on you. I wasn't even ON this forum at the time - although I had joined it many moons ago, but at the time there were hardly any Type 1 members so I looked elsewhere!
 
Over the last 20-odd years I've tried Simvastatin, Atorvastatin, Rosuvastatin, for about 8 years of that time also on Metformin, 2 x 850 tablets daily. Because I have Parkinson's, the tablets became too big to swallow, so I went on the liquid form, which I could not tolerate.
There followed a gap where I had no diabetes medication.
Apart from my BG levels going high, I noticed that my swollen legs/ankles/feet returned to normal, and I lost almost 2 stones in weight.
Having done a lot of research on the reactions between statins and T2 meds, I decided to stop taking statins.
I was eventually prescribed Empagliflozin, but having just been to the Diabetic Clinic for the very first time, it seems that I'm going to be doing weekly self-injection. The doctor mentioned that I had stopped taking statins, but made no comment other than that. He had my blood tests there, so I took it that my cholesterol levels were OK.
What the injections might be, I've no idea, but I go back in ten days or so for a further appointment.
I'm not anti-statin as such, but I did wonder when the government said that they would be offered as a matter of course to everyone over 50.
They might be fine for some who really need them, but I'm not convinced enough to add them back to my already considerable list of meds.

T2 Diabetes
Parkinson's Disease
Atrial Fibrillation.
 
PS I'd finished with such random BGs and getting repeated UTIs a fair while before that, anyway since I was no longer using once a day (porcine) Welcome Foundation 80u/ml Ultralente insulin.
 
I sometimes wonder how many people are sitting in care homes staring at the walls and being carefully administered their tablets every morning.
Looking back - though it is difficult now - my reaction to the Metformin and Atorvastatin was very concerning.
Once I stopped taking the tablets I had to work on my muscles to restore them, and go over and over my songs to relearn them - over 300.
The only upside was being able to read so many of my books as though for the first time.
I used to write stories for my own amusement, and I see I used to be quite good - but I have one only part completed and am unable to finish it.
The possible side effects really should be given more consideration.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top