Statins

[wallycorker]

I've been on simvastatin for nearly nine years - first 10mg then 20mg and now 40mg. Over that period of time my Total Cholesterol has dropped from always being in the 7s to just over 4 - but over the last twelve months through dietary changes it has dropped yet further to 3.1.

Other things have changed such as LDL (5.2 down to 1.5) and Triglycerides (3.3 at it's highest downto 1.18) have all dropped similarly.

The only one that never changes much is HDL that always seems to be between 1.0 and 1.3 no matter what I do. Perhaps because I do very little exercise?

I've never noticed any side effects or problems through taking the tablets but I do know people who have had problems. A close friend had to be taken off them double quick because they were causing problems to her liver.

 

[Northerner]

Hi John, have they ever suggested lowering your dose due to your levels getting low? This is one thing that surprises me, but thre is so much hype around about lowering cholesterol that there seems to be virtually no information on how low to sensibly go!😱

 

[C*5_Dodger]

I've been on simvastatin for nearly nine years - first 10mg then 20mg and now 40mg. Over that period of time my Total Cholesterol has dropped from always being in the 7s to just over 4 - but over the last twelve months through dietary changes it has dropped yet further to 3.1.

Other things have changed such as LDL (5.2 down to 1.5) and Triglycerides (3.3 at it's highest downto 1.18) have all dropped similarly.

The only one that never changes much is HDL that always seems to be between 1.0 and 1.3 no matter what I do. Perhaps because I do very little exercise?

I've never noticed any side effects or problems through taking the tablets but I do know people who have had problems. A close friend had to be taken off them double quick because they were causing problems to her liver.

Dear Whally,

I guess you are lucky - it isn't everyone who suffer side effects from taking statins. BTW your low level of Triglycerides is more to do with your diet rather than statins e.g. mine is 0.9mmol/L. Also have you noted VBH has kicked them into touch?

Regards Dodger

 

[williammcd]

i was on simvastatin but got taken off them after they caused all sorts of bowel troubles left me with IBS

 

[wallycorker]

Hi John, have they ever suggested lowering your dose due to your levels getting low? This is one thing that surprises me, but thre is so much hype around about lowering cholesterol that there seems to be virtually no information on how low to sensibly go!😱

Not yet - my GP showed no interest to change anything while it was just over 4. At my last review he reduced one of my two blood pressure medications. He never commented on reducing the simvastatin or my metformin.

I must say, I'm happy to have the low numbers after having had high ones and I'll leave it in my GP's hands at least for the time being.

Everything seems to be going crazily downwards - I was checking my blood pressure readings this afternoon and getting numbers of 90/50 ish.

 

[Peter C]

Cripes Northener....you have really set the cat amongst the pigeons in my house. My partner has great medical knowledge, when I opened dialog with her on this........I got chapter and verse as to why I should be on Statins. I quoted you!!!!!😉, also printed this out for her

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm

An interesting read, without doubt. I am just as confused now, as I was this time yesterday.....so I'm giving myself over to nature😉

Hi Dave,
the link you gave is so full of errors and misconceptions that it is difficult to know where to start with it.
Narrowed arteries and atherosclerotic plaques are full of cholesterol so medical research tells us, deposited their by LDL. If, as kendrick maintains, cholesterol is not the culprit, not the substnce in athero plaques, WHAT IS ?
What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.

 

[wallycorker]

Dear Whally,

I guess you are lucky - it isn't everyone who suffer side effects from taking statins. BTW your low level of Triglycerides is more to do with your diet rather than statins e.g. mine is 0.9mmol/L. Also have you noted VBH has kicked them into touch?

Regards Dodger

Dodger - Yes - I'm aware that I got a big improvement in readings over the last twelve months through changing my diet - that effect was TC 4.2 to 3.1; LDL 2.0 to 1.5; TG 2.56 to 1.18; HDL 1.0 to 1.1; TC/HDL 4.2 to 2.8.

Creatinine also went down to my lowest on record 87 (usually round about 100 previously) but I don't understand what that is about - something to do with kidney or liver I think.

Don't know what you mean about the last sentence.

 

[Jean]

Cholesterol the culprit?

What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.[/QUOTE]

A distinction has to be made between cholesterol as a/the cause of narrowing arteries and cholesterol as a presence at the scene of the crime.

See http://www.fsponline-recommends.co....D=2147066075&u=11110812&g=0&o=90640&l=172856&

 

[DiabeticDave]

Hi Dave,
the link you gave is so full of errors and misconceptions that it is difficult to know where to start with it.Narrowed arteries and atherosclerotic plaques are full of cholesterol so medical research tells us, deposited their by LDL. If, as kendrick maintains, cholesterol is not the culprit, not the substnce in athero plaques, WHAT IS ?
What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.

Peter.....without this thread degenerating into an argument, rather than debate. You have posted three times on this thread, all three aimed at dissing Kendrick, then tell us that we should believe without fail, the wise words of James H. O'Keefe . Surely, a man such as Kendrick should be given a platform. FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs.

You claim the link is full of 'errors and misconceptions'.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.

 

[Northerner]

Peter.....without this thread degenerating into an argument, rather than debate. You have posted three times on this thread, all three aimed at dissing Kendrick, then tell us that we should believe without fail, the wise words of James H. O'Keefe . Surely, a man such as Kendrick should be given a platform. FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs.

You claim the link is full of 'errors and misconceptions'.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.

I was just about to ask the same thing Dave. Is there a similar publication in existence which debunks Kendrick's claims? I'm not a scientist, so wouldn't make any claims for the accuracy of Kendrick's scientific explanations of the mechanisms of atherosclerosis. I do, however, understand simple logic, and his arguments regarding the reporting of statistical data from the myriad trials do seem valid to me in that they do not support an overwhelming case in favour of the cholesterol hypothesis, or the need for the majority of the population to be on statins.

Regarding the Heart Protection study, this gives a very good analysis of how taking statins may help you avoid an 'event'. I fall into the second group, those not having had a heart attack, so am one of the three yellow faces. I'd rather take my chances along with the other 97! As the webpage says, in order to be sure that the three are 'saved', all 100 have to be given the statin (statistics-talk!):

http://www.nntonline.net/ebm/newsletter/2003/06/diabetes_and_statins.asp

 

[Peter C]

FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs.

You claim the link is full of 'errors and misconceptions'.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.

Hello Dave,

No GPs are not paid to give you certain drugs, they are paid to get lipids into normal ranges because that is so important ! The simplest and most effective way for most people is via medication as well as diet/exercise. It is actually a shame that Gps have to be incentivised to do the right thing.

Where do we start with thew rrors in the link you posted ? Well start here...
"In reality, cracks in the hypothesis appeared right from the very start. The first of these was the stark observation that cholesterol in the diet has no effect on cholesterol levels in the bloodstream."
Really "cholesterol in the diet" has no effect on the levels on the bloodstream ??? So why do you think most Lipid panels are taken in a fasting state ? Because, contrary to what Kendrick states, it has been known since the 1930s that chols will rise in the bloodstream after a meal. In fact chols and the Lipids transporting them around the blood stream rise after a meal and peak at 3 hours , returning to "normal" at 5 hours.
On top of that between 20 and 30% of people are Hyper-responders to Dietary Cholesterol - they don't just respond in the normal way to deitary chols, their lipids whoosh up after a meal.
It is in this state of Postprandial Hyperlipidemia where most damage is done, especially in diabetics where Postprandial Hyperlipidemia entwines with and exacerbates Postprandial Hyperglycemia.

And the basic question I ask of Kendrick remains - if it isn't cholesterol in the atheromas and plaques - WHAT IS IT ????

 

[C*5_Dodger]

[Don't know what you mean about the last sentence.[/QUOTE]

Dear Whally,

Have a look at a post on this forum from VBH. I just checked the other one and that says 40mg Simvastatin!

Regards Dodger

 

[Peter C]

What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.

A distinction has to be made between cholesterol as a/the cause of narrowing arteries and cholesterol as a presence at the scene of the crime[/QUOTE]

It was the Vicar wot done it in the Library with the lead piping.

 

[Northerner]

Following on from my earlier post about the HPS, it didn't seem to matter what the cholesterol levels of the diabetics in the study was, so why is it important that it be driven ever further down? Surely this means that it's not the statins' actions on cholesterol that is important, but something else? If my level of 4.0 was 'good' where's the benefit in it being 2.4? I don't see how levels of cholesterol can appear to be irrelevant and yet so important at the same time.

 

[C*5_Dodger]

Following on from my earlier post about the HPS, it didn't seem to matter what the cholesterol levels of the diabetics in the study was, so why is it important that it be driven ever further down? Surely this means that it's not the statins' actions on cholesterol that is important, but something else? If my level of 4.0 was 'good' where's the benefit in it being 2.4? I don't see how levels of cholesterol can appear to be irrelevant and yet so important at the same time.

Dear Northerner,

I agree with your reasoning about the level not being relevent. Your body sets the level it needs to be at. If you eat cholesterol, ofcourse your level rises but then the body downregulates its production so that there is little increase. Ater all 80% (approx) of the cholesterol in the body is manufactured there. There is one statin manufacturer (Astra Zenica) who has tested its latest (Crestor) drug not on cholesterol levels but on elevated c reactive protein (Statins are powerful anti-inflamatories). They are, I believe, starting to think that heart disease is caused by inflammation - so does Kendrick - sort of!

Regards Dpdger

 

[Ellowyne]

Confused!

My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along 😡

 

[Northerner]

My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along 😡

Hi Ellowynne, I'm not surprised you are confused! I personally would prefer the more cautious approach taken by your GP. My own GP was of a similar opinion and made me take regular liver tests. I think the thinking is that an adverse side-effect of the statins is on the liver but you are not necessarily going to suffer that side-effect so it may not be an issue for you.

Perhaps you can discuss with your GP alternative approaches you might take to reduce your cholesterol level and give you some extra time to try this approach before putting you on the statins?

 

[C*5_Dodger]

My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along 😡

Dear Ellowyne,

I'm so sorry that all is not well with you - this thread must be causing you even more anguish! However, please note that this thread was started by Northerner, who has arrived at a decision to stop taking statins based largely upon his own research. We cannot offer advice, but what I can say is I would not take statins or gliclazide - just my opinion. The reasons for the former are in the above posts the reason I would not take gliclazide is because the mechanism of action is to force the already overworked pancreas to produce even more insulin. This, in my opinion, means that it burns out in about three years. The upshot being, the next step is insulin. Now I have nothing against insulin, it is, in my opinion, the only drug that works in the long term. Its just that I have chosen to put this off for as long as possible. So, Ellowyne, read this thread, decide what you want to do and tell your medics what you want to do - afterall its you who are in charge of your diabetes.

Warmest Regards Dodger

PS The figures you see below really are as a result of my diet/lifestyle

 

[kojack]

I don't see how this thread fits in as a thread in a diabetics' support group.

This quoting from various tomes and opinions being thrust in from non medically qualified members on statins is IMHO in total conflict with the premise on which this forum was formed.

I would almost suggest that there are many posting in this thread who could save the NHS a lot of money by totally disregarding their GP/Consultant's advice and filling the pockets of the authors of the quoted books.

 

[katie]

I don't see how this thread fits in as a thread in a diabetics' support group.

This quoting from various tomes and opinions being thrust in from non medically qualified members on statins is IMHO in total conflict with the premise on which this forum was formed.

I would almost suggest that there are many posting in this thread who could save the NHS a lot of money by totally disregarding their GP/Consultant's advice and filling the pockets of the authors of the quoted books.

From what ive read of this thread people have been quoting what they have read from qualified doctors (eg. Dr Malcolm Kendrick, "a medical doctor who has spent many years researching the causes of heart disease."). Maybe you have the perfect GP who tells you exactly the right things you should do and prescribes you the perfect medicines that he/she knows for a fact will help you best they can, but mine isn't the perfect GP and I'm yet to find one. You can't always take what your GP says as gospel and sometimes need to do your own research to make up your own mind.

Northerner started this thread to tell people that from his research he has decided to stop taking statins, he was not telling other people to stop taking theirs, but merely read up about the drug. Bearing in mind Northerner's cholesterol is low, I don't think his GP is going to suggest he should stay on them to make it lower? We shall see.