Statins

I too get nightmares, really horrendous ones, but I have not come off the statins because the alternative is worse. I taught myself to be aware that I was dreaming and divert the topic down a more pleasant route, lucid dreaming. I wonder if those of us who have nightmares have always been prone ? I had night terrors right into my adult life and sleep walking was a real problem.
Interesting that garlic, as a substitute for statins, is thought to be useful. The amount of garlic that we consume should have sorted my cholesterol out many moons ago

Ana, neither vehement nor vociferous. And distorting because I have never argued for statins to be taken willy nilly for anyone over a certain age, which I agree is totally wrong, but for those who are at high risk of heart attacks or stroke. I am vehement and possibly vociforeous- about the 'MMR vaccine/Wakefield' type of bad press which can result in people who would really benefit from the drug, and for whom it might well be a life-saver- being put off taking them- with possible serious consequences As has happened to at least one good friend of mine- whose wife wanted to sue the NHS and his GP for not forcing him to take them!).

I started taking statins a couple of years back , and stopped due to having nightmares.
I do take a garlic capsule as an alternative.
Recently been diagnosed with diabetes , after a blood test because of high sugar levels , I had another one next week , I had been drinking various real ales working at a beer festival , and this as maybe added to the high sugar level.
I have avoided alcohol up until I get the next result and review and the surgery.
seems drinking water is answer with exercise.

Biker, I always ask for a copy of the results as a print-out before discussing the results. There is nothing worse than a GP or practice nurse sitting with a screen in front of them discussing what you cannot read.

biker here in France we get a copy of the lab report each time we have a blood test. The Doctor gets a report by email the same day and our copy arrives in the post a day or so later. These reports also show the boundaries within which the results should be and if the doctor at the lab has any advice as to treatment etc there will be remarks and suggestions etc! My OH is on Warfarin and therefor has very regular INR tests and these results are also shown as a graph for the last few tests. All together it gives the patient a good overview of their general health. Our GP rings us the same evening as he gets the results if there is any problem or change of medication and either tells you what to do or to pick up a prescription or go and see him.

You have been vociferous in your support of statins on other threads, granjura. For goodness sake, it only means expressing a vehement opinion!

I don't understand what you mean by my distorting and attacking anything you say, but certainly in this instance your accusation is unjustified.

Ana, I'm sorry, but no, I have never been vociforous about statins- best re-read my posts perhaps. I've said many a time it makes no sense for all over 55s or 60s to be on statins- unless there are other health problems re heart or high blood pressure.

I just happen to live with a retired GP I trust absolutely totally- I am lucky, I know. He agreed it didn't make sense for me to continue on them now diabetes is well controlled, and all tests + BP excellent.

Ana- you are of course totally entitled to attack and distort anything I say- but it is getting a little tiresome, to be honest. But fire awayif it makes you feel better, i shall survive.

bikergran, posts crossed. My GP here always gives me a print out with all the results, 1 column per year so I (and OH) can look and compare year by year. Why not ask your doctor to write them down for you next time?

To be honest, I would not know how to read the liver and rhenal function figures and other stuff, and just hand it to OH to check. But you could get doctor to write your blood pressure and cholesterol(s) next time- in fact, just phone the surgery and ask the receptionist to forward them to you, or pop in to ask- you don't need to see the doc, it will be in your notes.

Yes, vociferous in your opinions, granjura. On other threads about statins.

You didn't make it clear in your post that this was a different GP (?), hence my surprise that he didn't know you'd stopped taking them.

Vociferous ???

No, as ma cholesterol results were excellent, and they were not really raised when I was put on them due to diabetes- I discussed it with my very own GP at home. Our GP was quite poorly last year and in hospital with heart problems for a while- so he really didn't need to see patients who didn't need seeing. As I have no heart problems, and very low blood pressure- and the diabetes is very well controlled- it makes no sense for me to be on statins.

I've said it before, I totally disagree with anyone over a certain age with any kind of health issue being put on statins, it there is no heart problem or high BP- or oher relevant health issue - where they can be true life-savers (as for my GP and my OH, unfortunately). So not, not vociferous at all- au contraire.

when you go to the Docs for these kind of results..I know they sort of mutter oh your good cholesterol is blardy bla..and your bad is blardy bla....but I never write them down, I think they should give you a print out to take home and chew over, as once out of the surgery your mind just goes blankty blank...

I'm very surprised to hear that you came off statins a year ago, and didn't tell your GP granjura, especially in the light of your vociferous support of them on here!

Had my annual blood tests today and a good chat with GP and he was really pleased with my cholesterol, total, good and bad. I told him I had come off the Simvastatin a year ago as my tests were really good- and he was really surprised, as he had never known anyone who had stopped and whose cholesterol had not gone back up.

I told him about this thread, and we discussed the bad press- and he said he despairs about it- and has lost several patients due to their reluctance to take statins due to said bad press, which he finds so tragic and frustrating. He also said he would probably be dead if he wasn't taking them, due to his heart problems. Just thought I'd share, even though I know some of you will never change your mind, whether you are at risk or not.

Agree on 2 points- the idea of putting everyone on statins, just in case- is absolutely ridiculous. We are talking here about those whose cholesterol and/or other health indicators + family history here however.

And that a quick heart attack is much much better than years of slow decline and/or Alzheimers. Absolutely. How do you feel about years and years of dealing with them massive side-effects of a stroke? The same? I don't, that is for sure.

I think that mass medication with statins is alarmist and unnecessary and probably led by the drug companies.
I've never had my cholesterol measured and would actually rather die of a quick heart attack than after 10 years of dementia. Big pharma has vested interests in keeping us alive for an extra decade of decrepitude.

The press have a habit of trawling through the BMJ when there's not much 'bad news' to report and digging up an old article with which to scare people .

A letter by one of the Senior researchers in the BMJ quotes that the same % of those given statins or placebo developed myalgia ('muscle/joint pains). Furthermore, when people who had stopped taking statins for reason above and were persuaded to start again, the same % started to develop the same symptoms again, irrespective of whether they had been given statins or placebo.

He states : the effect of these papers is that, for the wrong reasons, patients whose future morbidity and mortality from cardiovascular disease would have benefited substantially from statin therapy, will be dissuaded from taking the drugs or will discontinue them if they are already receiving treatment'.

He concludes:

the reporting of bad sience is the prerogative of the lay press, not the BMJ.

Thanks Ana - I've been puzzled about that.
Different ways of recording perhaps.

Oh, I see - your mmol/L level is in fact 2.63 then. If you do indeed have a high risk of heart disease, current advice would seem to be to try to lower that level to 1.8 mmol/L or less.

Ana - I agree and don't know why he thinks I should aim for that.
On my last report it says:
Cholesterol LDL 1,02 g/L (2,63 mmol/L)
Then below - patients à haut risque cardiovasculaire: cholesterol-LDL less than 1.00 g/L

Had to go for a blood test today. The nurse was talking about side effects, and told me her dad was on statins and had bad pains in the muscles in his legs, so was going to be prescribed a different one, but she was not sure he should be on them at all as he had seemed to get much more poorly overall since he had been put on them.
I told her that I had been on them, but had come off them because I was having more and more difficulty walking, along with the pains in my muscles. I told her I was okay now I'd come off them.

Anything below 4 is accepted as fine, I think. Maybe the other measures mentioned ar USA measurements, which are different.

I think the decision of whether to prescribe statins is based on more than just cholesterol levels. My GP put into his PC info including my low BP and weight and concluded that I was less than 10% likely to have a stroke so no need to prescribe them even though my levels are high due to no thyroid gland. I think it needs to be 20% before they prescribe statins.

0.7 seems an extremely low figure to aim for, Tricia! Most doctors would be happy with anything below 3 for the LDL (or 'bad' cholesterol) level.

NanKate - hope you don't have any bad side effects. I've been taking statins since 2006 and I don't think I've had any bad side effects. My "bad" cholesterol is down to 1.3 now and my doctor said I should aim for `0.7.
I take 2 different ones, Crestor and Ezetrol.