Statins

Status
Not open for further replies.
In response to Sharpwaa, the symptoms you experienced sound like myalgia a known side effect of statins, hence withdraw the statin and the pain disappears. If needed there are other medications that will do the job called fibrates if statins are not tolerated as seems to be your case.
Just to stick my own twopenneth in.
When I was diagnosed with Diabetes nearly 20 years ago now my cholesterol was 8.6, it soon however reduced as my blood sugars decreased.
I do take statins and have had no side effects from them and am pleased that such things are available as I have familial hyperlipidemia.
My lovely dad had his first heart attack at the tender age of 35 and died at the age of 50 and had no such medications available to him.Incidentally all the males in his family have died at before the age of 50 with CHD.
I have 2 brothers who also have familial hyperlipidemia and have also been diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2, none of us are overweight so as our ' genes' seem to ill fitting we need all the help we can get.
Just as a matter of point the fact that my dad had his first heart attack at 35 we were all brought up on low fat, low salt and low cholesterol diets.:confused:😱
 
Jean said:
...and on with a serious discussion.

Oxidation and inflamation are not merely involved in heart disease - they are essential factors. As you say, the turnkey. Wthout oxidation, cholesterol - so beneficial to the body - would proceed harmlessly on its way.

Really ? Is there any scientific evidence that elevated cholesterol levels are not harmful in the basence of oxidation ??? Or could it be the other way round - with normalised levels of lipids oxidation won't be as harmful as it is.

But since it doesn't, a choice has to be made.

No it doesn't

Either we focus on negating the work of oxidation or we attack chlolesterol. You opt for the latter.

No I don't , I believe in attacking on both fronts. You don't have to choose between action on oxidation or hypercholesteremia. Be like the Bishop of Bath and Wells and say" Can I have both please ?"

Forget the commercial in the link I supplied, for CoQ10 is, as you say, at the moment of doubtful value: it has to undergo more rigorous trials than hitherto if it is to pass muster.

So much for taking it seriously as you lectured me on

Instead, consider the overall hypothesis: if we act against oxidation, cholesterol can be left in peace.

Totally unproven. Where are the research papers that back up such a hypothesis. Sounds potentially dangerous - it would put your gall baldder under immense strain for starters surely ?

Are you in the business of selling food supplements and tablets by the way?
Click to expand...
 
Lets not all fall out people , we are all entitled to say what we want on here no need for people to leave I assumed the comment jean made was directed at Peter , sharpaa get back here will you :D
 
Last edited:
sharpwaa said:
Well, that's me put in my place, pity really, I enjoyed coming on to this forum...........bye all x :(
Click to expand...

Getaway with ye sharpwaa! Your contributions are enormously appreciated!🙂 And Jean's comment was directed at Peter C!
Something that the debate does not seem to have answered for me is why it seems to be irrelevant what your level of cholesterol is - it seems to me that any level above zero virtually is deemed 'too high' or 'lower would be better'. I can see the logic of reducing a level considered high (i.e. higher than might be found in the healthiest portion of the population (for argument's sake, let's say the healthiest 30%), and how this might normalise a person's propensity to CVD - and even how a slightly lower level might be desirable in someone with an extra problem like diabetes - but beyond that, where should the lower limit be before doctors agree that it is low enough?

If you see what I mean!🙂
 
sharpwaa said:
Well, that's me put in my place, pity really, I enjoyed coming on to this forum...........bye all x :(
Click to expand...

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back, I enjoy your threads as they always seem to explain things to me in Plain english! sometimes the technical lanuage of medical professionals (and non professionals) makes no sense to me at all and i like to think i am quite intelligent!🙂 HaHa...as for jokes and jovial comments I find them totally refreshing !!!
Comments such as.... 'on with a serious discussion' are patronising 😡 everyones comment/opinion is valid however they choose to express it !!

If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !
 
am64 said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back, I enjoy your threads as they always seem to explain things to me in Plain english! sometimes the technical lanuage of medical professionals (and non professionals) makes no sense to me at all and i like to think i am quite intelligent!🙂 HaHa...as for jokes and jovial comments I find them totally refreshing !!!
Comments such as.... 'on with a serious discussion' are patronising 😡 everyones comment/opinion is valid however they choose to express it !!

If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !
Click to expand...


yup count my name as first on it
 
am64 said:
NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back ..........If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !
Click to expand...

Where do I sign??

(Unfortunately, this discussion has moved on from stuff that I am able to understand, and I'm still not sure whether I take the bloomin' things or not!!)

xx
 
Bless Helen P X

ps I didnt wnt to turn this into a bring back sharpwaa thread honest North...

Back to the serious matter of Statins from now on folks!
 
Sharpy, don't you dare leave, we all value your presence and would miss you very much.

Everyone has a viewpoint and folk can get carried away, but we should never let these debates become personal or take what people say personally.
 
bugger me! some strong view points here peeps! And a hell of a lot of information for the nation! Keep it up you're teaching us simple folk a thing or three! Oh and don't get all up tight and fall out people😉 please.:D
 
C*5_Dodger said:
Dear Northerner,

I agree with your point about risk and benefit, but the real point at issue is the reason they are prescribed. The overwhelming reason is that they lower cholesterol because it is believed that high cholesterol causes heart disease (did you watch Malcolm Kendrick's video that I included in a recent post?). However, it is now becoming clear that cholesterol and saturated fat do not cause heart disease. Statins work because they are powerful anti-inflamatory drugs so unless you have elevated C reactive protein they should not even be considered and even then only if it's elevated due to inflamation connected with heart disease. BTW, I note VBH has stopped them also!

Regards Dodger

PS Good review - found it very illuminating too
Click to expand...

I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic. :D
 
tracey w said:
I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic. :D
Click to expand...

Thanks for that Tracey, I think this is the real difficulty we have - if someone at the level of cunsultant doesn't agree with them I think that validates the suspicions we mere mortals have about them, whether we understand the science or not. I am also mindful of the vast amunt of money backing the statin cause and miniscule amount available to those who challenge it.

I know it is probably psychological, but I do feel better since I stopped taking them nearly a week ago now. I have fewer muscle/joint pains (that I had been putting down to running) and am less troubled by the morning nausea that has plagued me since I was diagnosed. Interestingly, I stopped statins last year for a period of time when my doctor was trying to determine which of my medications was making me ill. The nausea was relieved somewhat then too, but we couldn't be absolutely sure it was just them so I was advised to go back on them. Now I think it was partly them and partly the aspirin. Now I am taking enteric coated aspirin and no statins the nausea has all but disappeared!🙂
 
Northerner said:
Thanks for that Tracey, I think this is the real difficulty we have - if someone at the level of cunsultant doesn't agree with them I think that validates the suspicions we mere mortals have about them, whether we understand the science or not. I am also mindful of the vast amunt of money backing the statin cause and miniscule amount available to those who challenge it.

I know it is probably psychological, but I do feel better since I stopped taking them nearly a week ago now. I have fewer muscle/joint pains (that I had been putting down to running) and am less troubled by the morning nausea that has plagued me since I was diagnosed. Interestingly, I stopped statins last year for a period of time when my doctor was trying to determine which of my medications was making me ill. The nausea was relieved somewhat then too, but we couldn't be absolutely sure it was just them so I was advised to go back on them. Now I think it was partly them and partly the aspirin. Now I am taking enteric coated aspirin and no statins the nausea has all but disappeared!🙂
Click to expand...

thats great Northener, i think what we all need is good quality of life now and going forward, whatever the future holds. who wants to feel nauseous or achey or worse every day? dont we have enough to deal with. Im so with you on all this!
 
tracey w said:
I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic. :D
Click to expand...

Dear Tracey,

Thanks for the update, I have been banging on about this for months - nice to see you found a consultant that has a similar viewpont. I'm lucky too I convinced my GP!

Warmest Regards Dodger
 
C*5_Dodger said:
Dear Tracey,

Thanks for the update, I have been banging on about this for months - nice to see you found a consultant that has a similar viewpont. I'm lucky too I convinced my GP!

Warmest Regards Dodger
Click to expand...

Yes he is great! my gp put me on amitryptaline(spelling) for headaches, when i saw the consultant he told me to throw them and cut down on coffee, it worked 😱

problem is he is finishing soon, got top job, running the hospital i think, :(
 
tracey w said:
The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic. :D
Click to expand...
This is scary as conventional wisdom says that statins should not be given to women who might become pregant (I do not know how to do a link but just Google "statins pregnancy"). Though the Daily Mail wants all pregnant women on them!:D
 
hermit104 said:
This is scary as conventional wisdom says that statins should not be given to women who might become pregant (I do not know how to do a link but just Google "statins pregnancy"). Though the Daily Mail wants all pregnant women on them!:D
Click to expand...

What is the Daily Mail's reasoning? I thought that statins had been shown to increase the risks of birth defects. Before I was born, my Mum was offered thalidomide to help her through morning sickness, but she refused them. It was a while before they realised how harmful it could be and I had a few friends growing up who had fingers missing etc. I think where babies are concerned you have to be more than careful about anything - it is so dependant on its mother as it develops.

Tracey and Ellowynne's experiences illustrate the point of how confusing it is for the patient - one has a consultant supporting statins, but a GP who does not, the other has them the other way round!
 
1. I know I do not want to live forever.
2. People I know who have taken statins long term usually seem to have bad side effects from them in the end (stomach problems etc).
3. Some people have immediate side affects of a similar type to point 2, and I dont think that being told that you will have to live with that for the good of your long term health is a good way to exist (living after all involves enjoying your time on this earth).
3. As far as I am aware we will all die in the end, and I dont want to spend my whole time paranoid about what I have to consume. So I will try to control my dietry habits to keep myself as healthy as possible, but will not take anything that does not guarentee a result.

It is always a personal choice on what advice to follow, and medical advice is worth considering, but there are many other ways than "another drug" to be healthy.
 
You hit the nail on the head there Bicardigirl. When I was medicated up to the eyeballs last year I felt miserable all the time - not seriously poorly, just the constant day-in, day-out of feeling unwell, and it really affected my quality of life. Today I went for a 5 mile run and have felt better than I have in months! And that run probably did more good for my heart and cholesterol levels than any pill!🙂
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top