Statins

I'm very sorry to hear about your friend, granjura, but I don't see how it can be proved that his death would definitely have been prevented if he'd carried on taking the statins.

Of course, but the autopsy was quite clear on the cause and it makes sense that statins could have helped prevent the continuing furring up or blockage/narrowing of arteries due to cholesterol. Now anyone who refutes that really should do some studying of the issues here, really.

I am not saying we should all be on statins, at all- but for those who are diabetic, have a complicates medical history, with strokes and heart problems, etc- they are truly a life-saver.

My point is, that, just like for vaccinations, scare-mongering does kill too often- deaths that could have been 'easily' avoided. Scare-mongering kills (:

I think doctors in France might be more pro-statin than elsewhere.
I had 2 stents put in 7 years ago and my good/ bad cholesterol levels have been up and down since then - annual+ blood checks.
Last ?Oct the specialist prescribed a "stronger statin" because the "bad" count had gone up .2. Then 3 months later it had gone down, but "good" was down too, so GP still thought it warranted reinforcemement and now I'm taking 4 pills plus aspirin per day.
I nearly rebelled, but I'm still alive TG so will persevere. I sometimes think I'm a guineapig.

I would not go on Statins !!!

Even if you had heart disease which required stents due to furring up and narrowing of arteries??? BTW this is what my friends said, due to fear-mongering on the internet.

It killed them. Which is of course better than having a massive and debilitating stroke, leaving you totally unable to live a normal life. Your choice, of course- but a bizarre and dangerous choice, if I may say. Bonne chance.

I've just eaten huge bar of chocolate. Now I'm sitting here imagining my arteries all furring up due to the fats and sugars

Aka [busmile] & chocolate eggs on Sunday too?

oops

Granjura I am sorry about your friend too, but you cannot say he died because of 'misinformation' about statins.
There is conflicting evidence in the literature about the side-effects of statins.
You cannot select the parts of the evidence you personally dislike, and call it misinformation.
If your friend had stents in place, he must have already had a serious condition. It was his own choice to take the statins or not.

granjura, last Easter I was in hospital having had an aortic dissection. When they realised what was wrong with me, I was sent to another hospital where they knew how to deal with it. Before I left, I was given a new tablet, so I asked what it was and was told statins. When I asked why I was told that everyone else was on statins. They affected my eyesight and my walking. I had pains in my calves and thigh muscles and after a few months could only just get out of bed.
I have stopped taking them, as quality of life is as important as life itself. Yesterday I walked for miles with my grandchildren. Last summer I would not have been able to walk at all. I have an aortic aneurysm, and could possibly have another attack any time now. I might have to have stents if the aneurysm grows any larger. However, my life is better now than it was when I was on statins. This is not scaremongering. It's the truth.

Agreed- but it is often difficult to make choices when bombarded with scare-mongering not based on proper medical evidence. Same for MMR vaccination. It is hugely sad to lose friends in their 50s who could have very probably saved by taking statins. Yes, this friend had heart disease which required previous stents- so it was even more important for him to take statins he had been prescribed and strongly advised to take- but refused to.
We have another relative who refuses to take statins because he believes it is causing mild hair loss - at 64 he's already had one heart-attack- but his hair seems more important than another heart attack. Sad and tragic choice in my book.

OH is the person I trust most in the world, with the right experience and training- so as he has asked me to take statins, because I have diabetes and impaired thyroid function- I do take them, happily without side-effects, as far as I know.

durhamjen- I am so sorry to hear this. And in your case, with clear and debilitating side-effects, and no heart-disease and depending on your cholesterol readings, I can totally understand why you stopped. But the fact YOU have strong side-effects should not put off others who may well NOT have any side-effects, or minor ones- and with cholesterol problems and heart disease, from taking them and have their own quality of life improved and live to see their grand-children grow up.

The problem is, Granjura, that you are the only person I have heard of who has not had side effects, particularly ones that affect the muscles.
If anyone asks me about statins, I tell them what happened to me and they say, the same happened to me or my husband or wife, etc.
My brother-in-law had the same, but I did not know until after it had happened to me. Four friends in the village have had muscle pains and had problems walking.
When statins were first invented, they were supposed to have CoQ10 in them, but the manufacturers changed the formulation. Heart disease patients on statins are consistently found to have low levels of CoQ10 which is needed for a healthy heart function. Catch 22.

It pulls both ways. I have a friend who died quite recently of cancer of the liver. It took them 5 years to discover that the liver problems she had were caused by the statins she was taking. Was her primary liver cancer the result of the damage her liver had sustained from the statins? I do not know, but it is not unreasonable to link them. Statins may save some, they may equally probably contribute to other people's deaths.

Having said that I do think there is clear evidence for the efficacy of statins for those with pre-existing cardiac conditions. And it does strike me as reckless for someone with a severe heart problem not to take them. It is the lack of evidence of efficacy for those whose cholesterol may be raised but who have no signs of heart disease that is still unproven and many studies, have shown that women in particular gain no benefit from taking statins.

Search and read the evidence on the internet and you will find strong arguments for and against statins, by experts in the field, all with impeccable medical backgrounds. But that information has been available since before the internet. I first became wary about statins as the result of reading information about them in paper sources. The internet has enabled me to study a far wider range of literature and none of it has done anything to alleviate my initial concern.

We need to remember that medicine is an art not science, a drug that works for one person, doesn't for another, a drug that causes dangerous side effects for one person, cures another. I am allergic to penicillin. It could kill me. For the majority of people it is an effective antibiotic and has saved many lives

So why not take some CoQ10 as a supplement if you think that helps- very cheap.

Excellent post, FlicketyB. I agree entirely.

Reading widely on the Internet does not always make one better informed. However reading Cochrane systematic reviews does:

Of 1000 people treated with a statin for five years, 18 would avoid a major CVD event which compares well with other treatments used for preventing cardiovascular disease. - See more at: summaries.cochrane.org/CD004816/statins-for-the-primary-prevention-of-cardiovascular-disease#sthash.LvCY6CdK.dpuf

Also the BBC's programme Case Notes on statins - here is the full transcript.

www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/science/casenotes_tr_20071016.shtml

Benecol is proven to lower cholesterol and is of the very few foods that is allowed to make any claim that it benefits health.

In other words, 1.8% would avoid a major CVD event. That is a very small percentage. For that 982 would take drugs that could severely reduce the quality of their lives and possibly cause other equally damaging illnesses (see my email above)

Just this week both my daughter in law aged 37, and my grandson's other grandmother, aged 67, have had health problems. Daughter in law has been put on beta blockers until she can see a heart specialist. The other grandmother has had a stroke and is in hospital in Denmark. I would not dream of telling either of them not to take statins if they were recommended. They can make up their own minds. The one certainty about statins is that you know if you are getting side effects, from what I have heard from others and my own experience.
I am not sure, granjura, about whether people who just take statins have to pay prescription charges, but if so, paying for CoQ10 on top of a monthly prescription is quite a lot for some people, particularly when the manufacturers were supposed to put CoQ10 in to get the licence.

I'm so sorry to hear about your DIL- must be very worrying due to her age, and hope they can help her asap- but I am glad you would not put her off taking statins if recommended due to her condition.

I totally agree with you that it was wrong to suggest all over 60s should take statins- that is just ridiculous, expensive and daft. We are both lucky that we do not have any side-effect from them- and we know lots and lots of people who take statins wihtout any problems either- apart from the relative who refuses to take them as he believes it's causing minor hair loss (hey at 64, minor hairloss is fairly normal I'd say). And it so happens we have lost 2 good friends in their mid-50s for whom statins were particularly well indicated due to their health problems- and who refused to take them due to bad press and internet- and died. And OH I know has truly my best interest at heart, and I know he would not strongly recommend I take statins if he did not truly believe it to be beneficial. And I trust him and his knowledge and experience absolutely totally.

We will have to just agree to disagree- and hope for the best. But I do think, that as in the case of MMR vaccination- that we have to be very careful- as misinformation can truly kill. Last post.

Granjura It is fine to talk of those who may have lived if they had taken stains, what about those who may have died as a result of taking statins? (see above)

I am just so sorry about this- but to be honest, I've never heard of anyone who died of taking statins and neither has OH in his long career. It can affect the liver, which is why people on statins should have liver function tests every year or 2 years. Sorry, I did say last post, so must remember.

Unfortunately, if the tests are not done, and they rarely are, the liver can be badly damaged. My friend was having all sorts of test and inspections to find why she was having the symptoms she had. It was 5 years before they realised it was the statins. Now I cannot prove that the damage to the liver was the reason primary liver cancer developed (she was not a drinker), but primary liver cancer is not that common and it is reasonable to think that a damaged liver is likely to be more susceptible to other liver problems.

Tragic indeed. And tbh, just cannot understadn why they did not do liver function tests at an earlier stage- it does seem negligent to say the least- she must have had symptoms that would alert them to liver problems, surely. Again, I am so sorry to hear this, but it does sound if it was a complicated case- and that statins were just part of the story.

I had terrible back pains [muscle] for years when taking simvastatin. Came off it when I almost lost the use of my right arm as well. The arm cleared up [from pains] within a week and the muscle strength took nearly a year to come back.The back pain is now almost gone, and some strength recovered there enough to do normal daily stuff, which at times, I had despaired of ever doing again.Other statins may well be a lot better as I think Simvastatin is the cheapest one to prescribe.However, my cholestrol isn't too bad anyway [the reason I had been put on it] and I am trying hard with weight loss.True about the hair thinning as well, my hair now looks tons better.