Does anyone really understand cholesterol? So confused!

Hondagirl - Apologies. I have just realised that you are in Australia, perhaps these drinks are not available in supermarkets there.

Nonnie, some of the bad press re statins does remind me of Andrew Wakefield and the MMR fiasco.

I know many GPs and Consultants who are on Statins in the UK, and our GP here in Switzerland is on Statins too. Who paid whom to twist their arm- or are they perhaps better informed than some sections of the internet- or perhaps suicidal or masochistic?

Hmm, can't say I agree there Granjura.
I think Ben Goldacre puts it in a nutshell here.
www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g3306/rr/759401
Have you read Bad Science and Bad Pharma? Well worth it.

How lovely to see you here Mamie- even if it is to disagree ;)
Bienvenue/welcome.

An excellent article- and I don't think he disagrees with what I said at all- but that people should have more info to make an informed choice. Absolutely. I've also said that the idea of giving everyone over 60 statins is preposterous and stupid. But OH, my GP and other very experienced doctors I know who have chosen to take statins due to their cholesterol and medical/family history, are indeed well informed, and have all information to hand. So why on earth would they choose to take statins- if their extensive research (and I can assure you doctors do take taking any drug very seriously)- if, on balance, they truly believed statins are bad for them?

I don't think anyone disagrees with the fact that people with a certain medical history should take statins. The problem is with the blanket prescription for certain groups in the population. I think the evidence that may be emerging about statins and type 2 diabetes needs very careful consideration.
I also know that OH is a different person since he stopped taking them. All he did was ask if he could have a lower dose and our doctor said, "No, you can stop". Makes you think. Oh and she also said that it might be contributing towards his tendonitis, so medical opinion may be changing?
Merci pour la bienvenue. Une petite pause m'a fait du bien.

Glad he is feeling better not being on them. But you've not answered the question- why would so many veryexperienced doctors, including my OH- choose to take statins, if they believed, having done extensive research on the subject? I have no medical knowledge or experience- but OH has- and he chose to take statins and has been doing so for quite some time, without side-effects- and despite changes in opinion out there- still does regular research and still chooses to continue to take them. And so do many other doctors I know.

So why, oh why, would they choose to do so. Are they stupid, deluded, blinkered, masochistic, suicidal or all five? A truly genuine question- and as I care for him very much and 44 years married.

I would presume that they were in the group that needed to take them because of existing conditions? I have also seen accounts from doctors who have chosen to stop taking statins though. I think our experience on the LCHF diet has made us look at things differently. When weight loss on a low carb high fat diet results in a drop in cholesterol it does make you question prevailing orthodoxies a bit.
Have you read Dr Malcolm Kendrick on statins? I am not a research scientist but I think his views are interesting.

Exactly- I have clarified several times that I am totally against the concept of all over 60s taking statins. But for some people, with some pre-existing conditions and clear family history - they are true life-savers. What really concerns me, is that those people often refuse to take them- due to bad press. In many cases, it will lead to a life ruined by a stroke or early death.

Indeed. I think we need therefore to be convinced that the science is robust, that financial incentives to put patients on statins play no part, that research is independent of drug companies and honestly reported and that side-effects are taken seriously.
This is not like the Andrew Wakefield research. Do read Ben Goldacre; he is a qualified, practising doctor who has spent years analysing the data.

It is like the Wakefield case in as much as bad press means people die and are affected bad strokes needlessly.

I'll trust my OH's very careful judgement that he is better off taking statins, and that when he advised patients to do so- his advice was true and honest and based on his experience and research, and NOT in any way linked to quotas or financial incentive, ever.

I'm not sure granjura whether you mean MMR and statins are similar because there has been research which purports to discredit them, or because people have been put off having them because of the controversy surrounding the research.
Either way, there is a great deal of difference between a vaccine which will prevent an infectious disease that children are almost certain to get if they don't have the vaccine, and a drug which might prevent a degenerative disease in a relatively small number of the people who are prescribed it. If statins are prescribed for everyone with a 10% risk of getting the disease, it follows that 9 out of 10 of them wouldn't have developed the disease anyway.

The latter, I thought that was clear.

And again, for the third time (and more in the past)- I am talking about Statins being taken by people with clear past or family history of strokes or heart disease and pre-existing conditions, not all the over 60s!

Not all children get M, M or R- and certainly not all have devastating effects from either- but few would now say that vaccination is not essential.

Thanks for the tip KatyK, I will look out for them. Not sure if we can get them here in Oz.

A friend from the UK phoned today to wish DH happy birthday. He's had a second heart attack and needs more stents- has a very bad family history of heart disease and other health problems- but refuses statins becasue it was thinning his hair. Choices- priorities???

"It is a serious disservice to British and international medicine," Collins told the Guardian at the time, claiming that the alarm caused was probably killing more people than had been harmed as a result of the paper on the MMR vaccine by Andrew Wakefield. "I would think the papers on statins are far worse in terms of the harm they have done."

The paper, by John Abramson and colleagues, questioned the decision to extend statins to thousands of people at low risk of heart attacks and strokes, saying that the drugs had not been proven to save lives in that group. They also claimed that an observational study had shown that 18%-20% suffer side effects from statins. An article by cardiologist Aseem Malhotra published the same week repeated the figure. Both authors have now withdrawn that statement.

In an editorial published in the BMJ, author Dr Fiona Godlee said the error was due to a misreading of the data from the study and was not picked up by the peer review process. "The BMJ and the authors of both these articles have now been made aware that this figure is incorrect, and corrections have been published withdrawing these statements," she writes.
Advertisement

Writing, peer reviewing and editing are all subject to human error, she says, "which is why we must be, and are, ready to correct things when they are found to be wrong".

Collins, however, wants the paper and the article that the BMJ published to be retracted. Godlee has referred this to an independent panel to decide, saying that the remainder of the articles remain valid.

"My point is that this is a serious misrepresentation of the scientific evidence and has substantial public health impact," Collins said. The erroneous side effects claims were being repeated around the world, he claimed, and would continue to be made unless the papers were withdrawn.

Prof Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, said it welcomed "the BMJ's retraction of incorrect statements on the side effects of statins". He said: "Statins are an important weapon in the fight against heart disease and it is essential that trusted medical journals like the BMJ do not mislead the public. Patients should feel reassured by this move and should not stop taking their statin."

John Greenwood, professor of biomedical research at University College London, said: "There is overwhelming scientific and clinical evidence that statins are an extremely well-tolerated class of drug that provides significant health benefit to a vast number of at risk patients. Despite such overwhelming evidence, there remains a disproportionate and highly public opposition to their use. Much of this concern is based on the view that harmful side effects are not fully reported and this is further strengthened by a plethora of anecdotal 'evidence'.

"It is therefore to be applauded that the BMJ has taken steps to clarify any misconceptions that could arise from publications in which there has been a clear misinterpretation of data. As with all drugs, the sole criteria determining statin use should be whether the risk outweighs the benefit. Consequently, it is incumbent on the scientific and medical community to ensure that data is interpreted in the most rigorous fashion so that such decisions are based on fact and not on spurious assumptions."

I have it sorted. My surgery regularly prescibes me Statins. I accept them with a smile and chuck them away. I am still alive ....

Your decision not to take them of course. But why on earth collect them and chuck them away- but really beggars belief (if it is indeed what you do- no wonder the NHS is on its knees...)

... and then if you do have a cardio-vascular 'event' - the research will show that you had one despite being on statins...

I came off statins because of pains in my legs. I could hardly walk.
When I said to the nurse about filling in a yellow card, she said they didn't bother because it happened so often.
So the data cannot possibly be accurate.

Has anyone mentioned triglycerides yet? These are another form of fat that is found in the blood and another risk factor.

hondagirl you can buy benecol etc drinks in Coles, Woolworths and Aldi
There is also a cholesterol lowering pasta called, I think, Vetta.