# Statin tablets.



## gavroche (1 Mar 2020)

I have been taking them for about 30 years and constantly hear conflicting views about the possible effects on your heart.
I must say they work great for controlling your cholesterol as mine is spot on now according to doctors and it was quite high before I started taking them.
Last September, my brother in law, who was also a GP, died of a massive heart attack due to an enlarged heart and calcification of the valves. Apparently, this may be caused by a combination of taking statin and blood pressure tablets, which got me wondering, although my blood pressure is spot on so I can rule this one out so no tablets for that.
What are your views on it if you have medical knowledge?


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Mar 2020)

@Bill Gates will be along pretty soon....


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

ohh this should get @Bill Gates frothing at the mouth


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

Don’t tag him a third time whatever you do


----------



## dave r (1 Mar 2020)

I've been taking statins for years, along with low dose aspirin and bisoprolol, I've had angina and a heart attack, I'm aware of all the conflicting information on statins and it does make me wonder, but I'll keep taking my medication, I won't take the chance and stop anything, I don't want another heart attack.


----------



## Bill Gates (1 Mar 2020)

No doubt "The Knights" have contributed to this thread already and no doubt they have been totally disrespectful to me. I wouldn't know for sure because I have chosen to place them on ignore. Maybe they haven't. I don't want to know. "Th Knights" are the collective name I have given to those members on here who take statins and who have faith in their GPs who prescribed them to be necessary to help prevent CVD. Taken from the Moody Blues Song "Knight in White Statins" (my little joke)

Where to start.

I used to take statins. Initially 20 mg a day and finally 80 mg a day after a heart attack. The side effects i experienced were extreme, and that was entirely due to me determination to once again be a competitive racing cyclist and training my guts out to get there. Exercise Intolerance is not something I was made aware of and it was only after a race where I was completely racked with pain in my thighs and total exhaustion that I began to investigate it thoroughly. That was 16 years ago.

I could write a book on the subject. Over the years I have received a lot of abuse on this and other forums. I'm used to it. All I can do is open the door to the possibility for you that these drugs are not only unnecessary but are in fact poison. There are various studies cited on both sides of the debate. You quote one study and another is quoted back at you. If you start with a hypothesis then it is simple and quick to find a study that backs up your point of view. The clue as to which is correct is to follow the money. Studies resourced by the pharmaceutical companies unsurprisingly show that statins work in reducing the risk of CVD. Independently run companies show some frightening results from their studies.

Statins work. They reduce cholesterol. But what if high cholesterol isn't a factor in CVD.

Check out Prof Sherif Sultan and Dr Aseem Malhotra. Neither of whom have anything to gain from telling you the truth about statins.

Me - Flush then down the toilet as soon as you can. Check out Bulldogs Birthday Workout on here. I'm 71 and feel great. None of those guys on statins will show you likewise. Especially "The knights" Come on guys put your money where your mouth is. If Statins are so good why do you feel like sh1t?


----------



## classic33 (1 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> No doubt "The Knights" have contributed to this thread already and no doubt they have been totally disrespectful to me. I wouldn't know for sure because I have chosen to place them on ignore. Maybe they haven't. I don't want to know. "Th Knights" are the collective name I have given to those members on here who take statins and who have faith in their GPs who prescribed them to be necessary to help prevent CVD. Taken from the Moody Blues Song "Knight in White Statins" (my little joke)
> 
> Where to start.
> 
> ...


*Who advised _"any patient who was taking statins and had concerns to talk to* their doctor about them and heed their advice."*_
You can always call him on his mobile, 00 353 85 1295141 and ask him why he's pushing/promoting himself so much.
*Who just happens to be pushing his Pioppi Diet.

And I'm not taking/on statins.


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> Come on guys put your money where your mouth is. If Statins are so good why do you feel like sh1t?



an awful lot of presuming right there in that statement.

I am taking statins and don't feel like shoot …..happy to help


----------



## Bill Gates (1 Mar 2020)

roadrash said:


> an awful lot of presuming right there in that statement.
> 
> I am taking statins and don't feel like shoot …..happy to help
> 
> View attachment 506615


I'll say the same thing to you as I've said to others who are taking statins. Good Luck


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

I don't think I need your good luck wishes
I do think you need to drop the arrogance and childish names (the knights) and accept that people are different , not everyone is exactly the same as you.


Bill Gates said:


> Over the years I have received a lot of abuse on this and other forums


 i cant imagine why


----------



## classic33 (1 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> "Th Knights" are the collective name I have given to those members on here who take statins and who have faith in their GPs who prescribed them to be necessary to help prevent CVD. Taken from the Moody Blues Song "Knight in White Statins" (my little joke)


Not much of a joke


> The clue as to which is correct is to follow the money. Studies resourced by the pharmaceutical companies unsurprisingly show that statins work in reducing the risk of CVD. Independently run companies show some frightening results from their studies.


With the names given so far, all pushing their own "poison" for money.

I'm aware of the first you've named, and wish I wasn't. Goes back to the gagging order placed on him by the HSE.


> Me - Flush then down the toilet as soon as you can.


Why waste three lots of money, seeing the doctor, getting the prescription, then getting the prescription filled, just so you can flush them down the toilet.[/QUOTE]


----------



## gavroche (1 Mar 2020)

Statins has certainly controlled my cholesterol level and the only side effect I seem to get is cramps in my right thigh at night, sometimes. 
I take 20mg a day. To put my mind at rest, I think I will have a word with my GP and ask specific questions.
By the way, any GPs on this forum to give us their opinion on it?


----------



## Bill Gates (1 Mar 2020)

roadrash said:


> I don't think I need your good luck wishes
> I do think you need to drop the arrogance and childish names (the knights) and accept that people are different , not everyone is exactly the same as you.
> 
> i cant imagine why


You win the argument. Congratulations. I am an arrogant childish arseole. There I admit it. But I'm not stupid. At the end of the day you are taking statins and I'm not. The real winner won't be known until another few years have gone by. I can only open the door it's you who has to apply your own rationality to what is most likely.


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> it's you who has to apply your own rationality to what is most likely.




I already have done


----------



## Bill Gates (1 Mar 2020)

roadrash said:


> I already have done


Another statement of the bleeding obvious. You're good at that


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

I've never taken statins, no cholesterol issues, 
I've never taken anti-hypertensives, no high blood pressure, 
but that said I've also not had two heart attacks which would put me at a far higher risk of another (with a higher chance of it being fatal) and I've thus no resultant deficit in heart muscle


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

I know....thanks


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

roadrash said:


> an awful lot of presuming right there in that statement.
> 
> I am taking statins and don't feel like shoot …..happy to help
> 
> View attachment 506615


I'd rather be a knight than some ugly slobbery dog


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> I'd rather be a knight than some ugly slobbery dog




or in his own words...….I am an arrogant childish arseole


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

roadrash said:


> or in his own words...….I am an arrogant childish arseole


I think that's him toning it down


----------



## gavroche (1 Mar 2020)

Now people, can we stop the slanging match and stick to the subject I started ?


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> Statins has certainly controlled my cholesterol level and the only side effect I seem to get is cramps in my right thigh at night, sometimes.
> I take 20mg a day. To put my mind at rest, I think I will have a word with my GP and ask specific questions.
> By the way, any GPs on this forum to give us their opinion on it?


If you get muscle pain discuss whether a different statin might be better for you. Simvastatin (oldest one) has worse rates of muscle issues I believe, newer ones improved
Read the pack insert before discussing with GP


----------



## gavroche (1 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> If you get muscle pain discuss whether a different statin might be better for you. Simvastatin (oldest one) has worse rates of muscle issues I believe, newer ones improved
> Read the pack insert before discussing with GP


I take Atorvastatin.


----------



## slowmotion (1 Mar 2020)

^^^^^^Likewise. 40mg a day. I used to be on 80mg but it was reduced six months ago. Lord knows why.


----------



## roadrash (1 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> I take Atorvastatin.




As do i


----------



## derrick (1 Mar 2020)

Statins and asprin here, One heart attack down, Have regular check ups, so far so good, Am not a worrier. What will be will be. When its your turn, then thats it, you will live longer if you dont worry about it,


----------



## Fab Foodie (1 Mar 2020)

It’s an impossible topic.
@Bill Gates has very strong views, some might say zealous views on Statins and there is a whole thread of his regarding his strong views on the subject.
The rest of us have also weighed-up the risks and come to different conclusions.
I take high levels of Statins, have done for years without apparent side effects. If I don’t, I have Cholesterol readings in double figures. I already had a stent fitted at 42 years old and am now 57.
I can’t tell if Statins will kill me in the long term or not, however, I am fairly certain that without them my heart will most likely fail.
So despite a lot of conflicting medical and conspiracy theories am going along with the generally accepted medical consensus and taking my Statins. 
Nothing is certain. YMMV.


----------



## dave r (1 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> I take Atorvastatin.



The same one I take, no issues here.


----------



## dave r (1 Mar 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> It’s an impossible topic.
> @Bill Gates has very strong views, some might say zealous views on Statins and there is a whole thread of his regarding his strong views on the subject.
> The rest of us have also weighed-up the risks and come to different conclusions.
> I take high levels of Statins, have done for years without apparent side effects. If I don’t, I have Cholesterol readings in double figures. I already had a stent fitted at 42 years old and am now 57.
> ...



I've had Angina, 2008, a heart attack, 2016, I've got 5 stents fitted, I've read loads about statins, a lot of it contradictory, I'll keep taking the medication.


----------



## fossyant (1 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> I take Atorvastatin.



Same as me, 20mg a day. No side effects at all. We're all different and my doc did say you'll not reduce your level enough by diet. Quite happy with the results. 

We're all different and drugs interact differently. but I've had two of my ex. clubmates drop dead far too early ! Everything else points to very low risk of heart attack etc, but I seem to be genetically high cholesterol (both parents on statins for years).

We all have our own opinions, so lets stay there and not fall out.


----------



## Bill Gates (1 Mar 2020)

fossyant said:


> Same as me, 20mg a day. No side effects at all. We're all different and my doc did say you'll not reduce your level enough by diet. Quite happy with the results.
> 
> We're all different and drugs interact differently. but I've had two of my ex. clubmates drop dead far too early ! Everything else points to very low risk of heart attack etc, but I seem to be genetically high cholesterol (both parents on statins for years).
> 
> We all have our own opinions, so lets stay there and not fall out.


That's why I voted for you to be enrolled in the Hall of Fame. Very Statesmanship like.


----------



## fossyant (1 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> That's why I voted for you to be enrolled in the Hall of Fame. Very Statesmanship like.



I can just see everyone starting to 'fall out'. As for various pain meds, I don't get on with Pregablin, gabapentin and duloxetine - horrible side effects and limited pain relief, so I just put up with my back pain, the pain isn't as bad as the side effects. If the statins cause me issues, I will bin them.


----------



## winjim (1 Mar 2020)

I get my clinical biochemistry exam results next week. I'm keeping my own counsel until then, but I think I did alright on the lipid question. At least I gave a pretty full and comprehensive explanation although I'm not entirely sure I was answering the right question if I'm honest. We'll find out soon I suppose.


----------



## Sharky (1 Mar 2020)

fossyant said:


> I can just see everyone starting to 'fall out'. As for various pain meds, I don't get on with Pregablin, gabapentin and duloxetine - horrible side effects and limited pain relief, so I just put up with my back pain, the pain isn't as bad as the side effects. If the statins cause me issues, I will bin them.


Interested to know what the side effects of pregabalin were. Our autistic daughter has been on it for a long time, along with other meds, all for anxiety and ocd issues. She cannot express how she feels.


----------



## vickster (1 Mar 2020)

Sharky said:


> Interested to know what the side effects of pregabalin were. Our autistic daughter has been on it for a long time, along with other meds, all for anxiety and ocd issues. She cannot express how she feels.


It made my short term memory go to pot (things like not remembering whether I'd sent a work email 15 minutes later!) I was ok on 50mg but 100mg was too much. The lower dose didn't really help with the sleep disturbance due to nighttime pain so I stopped (under medical supervision)


----------



## pawl (1 Mar 2020)

I had a problem with statins aching joints.Doc tried various brands dosage etc.Practice nurse suggested taking one of the small bottles of Benacol.

I had an aortic valve replaced six year’s ago and the consultant was going to prescribe statins along with Aspirin and Bisprolol. Advised him Statins just did not suit me. The pharmacist came to see me an recommended Ezetamide as an alternative High colesterol was not a problem in my diagnosis the valve was not opening fully.The valve has three flaps which open to slow blood flow .In my case only two opened restricting blood flow.

MyBIL is on statins and swears by them A friend prescribed statins has problems with Statins

Horses for courses


----------



## Andy_R (1 Mar 2020)

pawl said:


> ......*Horses for courses*


What, starter or main?


----------



## winjim (1 Mar 2020)

Andy_R said:


> What, starter or main?


horse d'oeuvres


----------



## mjr (1 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> [...] an enlarged heart and calcification of the valves. Apparently, this may be caused by a combination of taking statin and blood pressure tablets, which got me wondering, although my blood pressure is spot on so I can rule this one out so no tablets for that.
> What are your views on it if you have medical knowledge?


Can you get a calcium scan? I think I saw that wotsit Moseley get one on the BBC. No idea how willing they are to do them. Maybe if you express your concerns, the specialist can suggest how to test for a yay/nay/further investigation.

I've not much medical knowledge except what I've got from having high cholesterol if not treated. I took statins. Atorvastatin first. I thought I was OK but then I couldn't stand up and once I stopped taking them, I realised I am missing months of memory, scattered over years, so who knows! Then Rosuvastatin (far worse - felt like broken bones, plus dizziness, nausea and more), Simvastatin (better but cramp-like and bad test results) and Pravastatin (better but still cramp-like)... also have relatives who take them, not all with problems but more with than without AFAIK. Now I'm on other drugs. So on the whole, I do worry that we don't understand the full function and importance of the HMG-CoA blocked by statins.


----------



## lazybloke (1 Mar 2020)

> <SNIP>
> All I can do is open the door to the possibility for you that these drugs are not only unnecessary but are in fact poison.



I've obviously missed the details in previous threads, but that's an extremely emphatic declaration.
They may be poison to you; they may have been mis-prescribed. The side-effects of statins are very well documented, but are not a certainty; my Dad has been on them for years with no side-effects.
They do not appear to be "poison" to _all_. Can you concede the possibility that many find statins extremely useful to manage atherosclerosis?


----------



## Sharky (2 Mar 2020)

No medical knowledge whatsoever, but I would ask myself

What were the reasons for the symptoms which caused you to start the medicine?
Was it down to life style - weight, alcohol, smoking, diet, exercise, stress etc?
Has there been any changes in life style?
If there have, then you can take these points to the GP and discuss 
If still the same lifestyle, then stopping the tabs, you would think, would return you to the state you were in 30 yrs ago - but still talk to your GP. Maybe the amount could be reduced with regular monitoring.
Good luck


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Mar 2020)

Sharky said:


> No medical knowledge whatsoever, but I would ask myself
> 
> What were the reasons for the symptoms which caused you to start the medicine?
> Was it down to life style - weight, alcohol, smoking, diet, exercise, stress etc?
> ...


I eliminated stress. Stress is a major factor in CVD.


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Mar 2020)

At the end of the day it's a personal choice. I can understand the pressures of doctors and family. One doctor told me 14 years ago that if I didn't take statins I would be dead within 2 years. Try telling that to your wife and still not take statins. The journalists and preeminent doctors who are exposing the truth about statins get regular attacks from the establishment. Its par for the course. Same on here.

Here's the thing. Having spent literally hours and hours researching this for my own benefit I absolutely believe that: -

Fat is not bad for you
Fat is good for you
Refined carbohydrates are bad for you
High Cholesterol is not a factor in CVD

Those of you with an open mind should watch this. The whole premise on which statin medication is based is false. Namely that fat is bad for you and High cholesterol is bad for you. Also check out Nina Teicholz.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GC9V1TWYLo4


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Mar 2020)

In the words of John Lennon, 

Expert, texpert choking smokers
Don't you think the joker laughs at you (ho ho ho, hee hee hee, hah hah hah)
See how they smile like pigs in a sty, see how they snide
I'm crying


----------



## winjim (2 Mar 2020)

You know if serious health topics are being discussed, and sensible questions asked, maybe we shouldn't just @ people for lulz.


----------



## raleighnut (2 Mar 2020)

My Doctor wanted me to start taking Statins and I said I wasn't that keen so she just said "Fair enough" and didn't prescribe them.


----------



## fossyant (2 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> It made my short term memory go to pot (things like not remembering whether I'd sent a work email 15 minutes later!) I was ok on 50mg but 100mg was too much. The lower dose didn't really help with the sleep disturbance due to nighttime pain so I stopped (under medical supervision)



Same here, plus literally feeling numb. Gabapentin slightly worse, felt like I'd had a frontal lobotomy - fuzzy feeling in the front of my head. Duloxetine, apart from brain zaps, lack of nerve feeling, problems in the gentleman's department, they worked well for pain.  Amitriptyline just made me feel weird and forget things. Tried them, but they just weren't worth the side effects.


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Mar 2020)

Still think that High Cholesterol is bad? Then you should watch this through. Around the 25 minute mark on the video it is shown conclusively that people with the Highest Cholesterol live the longest. They suffer less from all cause mortality than people with lower cholesterol. 
This guy articulates what I am saying far better than I can. 




View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlhG8_nZe0


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> At the end of the day it's a personal choice. I can understand the pressures of doctors and family. One doctor told me 14 years ago that if I didn't take statins I would be dead within 2 years. Try telling that to your wife and still not take statins. The journalists and preeminent doctors who are exposing the truth about statins get regular attacks from the establishment. Its par for the course. Same on here.
> 
> Here's the thing. Having spent literally hours and hours researching this for my own benefit I absolutely believe that: -
> 
> ...



Another pushing his own poison, whilst charging non too cheaply for his stuff that does work. Also in 2007, he was fined and reprimanded by the Virginia Board of Medicine for:
*“…bogus muscle tests that supposedly are related to body organs.”*


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

lazybloke said:


> I've obviously missed the details in previous threads, but that's an extremely emphatic declaration.
> They may be poison to you; they may have been mis-prescribed. The side-effects of statins are very well documented, but are not a certainty; my Dad has been on them for years with no side-effects.
> They do not appear to be "poison" to _all_. Can you concede the possibility that many find statins extremely useful to manage atherosclerosis?


Actually, he's got a point in that one claim. Statins work by deliberately inhibiting a bodily function that we don't fully understand. They might be poison, or merely toxic (we know they can injure). They're far from the only drug to do that, though, so that alone doesn't mean they should be avoided in all situations. Two of the replacement drugs (alirocumab and elirocumab) block a different bodily function that's not entirely understood. At this stage in medical development, we're basically trying to avoid landmines with only a tiny narrow flashlight and no map. When we get things like continuous arterial monitoring, we'll have a better idea how we die, what works and what doesn't.

As to whether they're useful in managing atherosclerosis or are a red herring profitable for some, time will tell. All we can do is listen to our bodies, our test results and our medical advisors, probably in that order of priority.


----------



## snorri (2 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> Now people, can we stop the slanging match and stick to the subject I started ?


No, is the short answer.
There are some very experienced cyclists on this forum who will offer sound advice in regard to adjustments to your bicycle which will alleviate pains in wrists, hands, or a***, brought on by cycling, but when it comes to health problems in general, best to consult your local GP.


----------



## Bill Gates (2 Mar 2020)

snorri said:


> No, is the short answer.
> There are some very experienced cyclists on this forum who will offer sound advice in regard to adjustments to your bicycle which will alleviate pains in wrists, hands, or a***, brought on by cycling, but when it comes to health problems in general, best to consult your local GP.



I did and he gave me statins. Sound advice not.


----------



## gavroche (2 Mar 2020)

snorri said:


> No, is the short answer.
> There are some very experienced cyclists on this forum who will offer sound advice in regard to adjustments to your bicycle which will alleviate pains in wrists, hands, or a***, brought on by cycling, but when it comes to health problems in general, best to consult your local GP.


Agreed but it is also interesting to have the views of people who have first hand experience of using it as patients.


----------



## vickster (2 Mar 2020)

gavroche said:


> Agreed but it is also interesting to have the views of people who have first hand experience of using it as patients.


Everyone is different though and will react differently to different medication for example as this thread shows already. 
If you have concerns or questions, address to your Dr who is familiar with your medical history / medical condition for which they were prescribed


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> I did and he gave me statins. Sound advice not.


To which you could have said "No".


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> Everyone is different though and will react differently to different medication for example as this thread shows already.
> If you have concerns or questions, address to your Dr who is familiar with your medical history / medical condition for which they were prescribed


But if in doubt, ask another doctor who can see your notes. My memory loss is from a time when I had a GP who fancied himself as a heart health specialist and never referred me to hospital care as NICE guidelines direct. It was only when I saw a locum by chance that all this was discovered.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> To which you could have said "No".


And get labelled as rejecting treatment, which then gets you refused life insurance... Much better to say you're not keen like @raleighnut did and hope they either withdraw the suggestion or refer you to specialists IMO.


----------



## vickster (2 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> To which you could have said "No".


And read the pack insert to educate self on potential side effects/interactions (or indeed ask the Dr what these might be)


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> And get labelled as rejecting treatment, which then gets you refused life insurance... Much better to say you're not keen like @raleighnut did and hope they either withdraw the suggestion or refer you to specialists IMO.


I'd say most Doctors would ask you why you said "No", giving you the chance to explain why. They could then offer another course of treatment.

Insurance companies don't have access to your medical records by the way.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> I'd say most Doctors would ask you why you said "No", giving you the chance to explain why. They could then offer another course of treatment.
> 
> Insurance companies don't have access to your medical records by the way.


No, they ask your permission to ask the nobber GP whose treatment suggestion you refused. Depends on the doctor but I'd be careful about giving any flat "No" lest you suffer the same fate.


----------



## fossyant (2 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> Everyone is different though and will react differently to different medication for example as this thread shows already.
> If you have concerns or questions, address to your Dr who is familiar with your medical history / medical condition for which they were prescribed



This bit's important re GP - MIL has moved doctors (mainly due to there being a practice near her Nursing home). MIL's blood glucose still too high (Type 2 on long acting insulin injections) so she's been put on Metformin as well. Thing is, she doesn't get on well with that and feels ill - new GP doesn't know this, but MIL really should have said it doesn't agree with her. She seems to happily accept medication changes then get's the side effects again. Gabapentin dose increases has caused her to fall in the past. Very important for the patient to know what works/what doesn't as well as the GP.


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> No, they ask your permission to ask the nobber GP whose treatment suggestion you refused. Depends on the doctor but I'd be careful about giving any flat "No" lest you suffer the same fate.


Saying "No" to one course of treatment is not the same as refusing treatment. I've said "No", more than once, to a course of treatment, explained why and been given other options.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> Saying "No" to one course of treatment is not the same as refusing treatment. I've said "No", more than once, to a course of treatment, explained why and been given other options.


That's your experience. Mine is different.


----------



## vickster (2 Mar 2020)

fossyant said:


> This bit's important re GP - MIL has moved doctors (mainly due to there being a practice near her Nursing home). MIL's blood glucose still too high (Type 2 on long acting insulin injections) so she's been put on Metformin as well. Thing is, she doesn't get on well with that and feels ill - new GP doesn't know this, but MIL really should have said it doesn't agree with her. She seems to happily accept medication changes then get's the side effects again. Gabapentin dose increases has caused her to fall in the past. Very important for the patient to know what works/what doesn't as well as the GP.


This is why it is good to accompany elderly relatives to appointments (eg when changing Dr surgery) - I've been to several with my mum


----------



## Fab Foodie (2 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> Still think that High Cholesterol is bad? Then you should watch this through. Around the 25 minute mark on the video it is shown conclusively that people with the Highest Cholesterol live the longest. They suffer less from all cause mortality than people with lower cholesterol.
> This guy articulates what I am saying far better than I can.
> 
> 
> ...



Well high cholesterol all but killed me 15 years ago ( had it not been for stents), so put that in your pipe and smoke it....


----------



## classic33 (2 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> That's your experience. Mine is different.


Aside from what's being said, you can challenge medical fact on your records, and get it corrected. You can't challenge medical opinion, but it remains that opinion. Normally one persons opinion, which shouldn't be treated the same as medical fact.


----------



## mjr (2 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> Aside from what's being said, you can challenge medical fact on your records, and get it corrected. You can't challenge medical opinion, but it remains that opinion. Normally one persons opinion, which shouldn't be treated the same as medical fact.


Yes, good advice, but first you have to know that bull shoot is in your notes and by then you may already have an insurance refusal, which itself is something you have to declare to future potential insurers even if you've had the records corrected 

Still seems good to be very cautious about responding with a flat "no" to a proposed treatment.


----------



## snorri (2 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> - Flush then down the toilet as soon as you can. . I'm 71 and feel great. None of those guys on statins will show you likewise. Come on guys put your money where your mouth is. If Statins are so good why do you feel like sh1t?


Why consult the medics if you flush their treatment down the toilet? Lots of 71 year olds feel great. Many medications can have ill effects on a minority of users, these people would seek further advice. Do the majority of statins users feel like ****? I don't think so.
With these comments you make it impossible to take your advice on this topic anyway seriously.


----------



## Slick (2 Mar 2020)

raleighnut said:


> My Doctor wanted me to start taking Statins and I said I wasn't that keen so she just said "Fair enough" and didn't prescribe them.


I assume your cholesterol levels are monitored and dealt with in another way?


----------



## raleighnut (2 Mar 2020)

Slick said:


> I assume your cholesterol levels are monitored and dealt with in another way?


Nah they're just higher than normal but not at a dangerous level, as mentioned upthread I don't think high cholesterol is that much of a problem


----------



## PK99 (2 Mar 2020)

pawl said:


> I had a problem with statins aching joints.Doc tried various brands dosage etc.Practice nurse suggested taking one of the small bottles of Benacol.
> 
> I had an aortic valve replaced six year’s ago and the consultant was going to prescribe statins along with Aspirin and Bisprolol. Advised him Statins just did not suit me. The pharmacist came to see me an recommended Ezetamide as an alternative High colesterol was not a problem in my diagnosis the valve was not opening fully.The valve has three flaps which open to slow blood flow .In my case only two opened restricting blood flow.
> 
> ...



I'm on Ezitimibe too. 

It works in a different way, sitting in the gut wall and blocking absorption instead of blocking production. Last time I looked it cost about £1k per year compared to pennies.

I have an autoimmune condition and atorvistatin provoked a lupus like rash.


----------



## Flying Dodo (2 Mar 2020)

It's worth pointing out that when the NHS say a cholesterol level higher than 5 is bad, it's simply an arbitrary figure that's been picked.


----------



## mjr (3 Mar 2020)

Flying Dodo said:


> It's worth pointing out that when the NHS say a cholesterol level higher than 5 is bad, it's simply an arbitrary figure that's been picked.


Not entirely. It's an expert opinion based on various studies. The relevance or general-applicability of those studies (especially to older women) is hotly debated by statin sceptics. However, the intervention point was 5.5mmol/l a few years ago and I forget why it was changed.


----------



## winjim (3 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> Not entirely. It's an expert opinion based on various studies. The relevance or general-applicability of those studies (especially to older women) is hotly debated by statin sceptics. However, the intervention point was 5.5mmol/l a few years ago and I forget why it was changed.


I think the point is that it's a target value rather than a reference value. That is, it's not derived from the 95% confidence limit of a reference population in the way that ranges for most analytes are, but rather is defined as the level above which intervention may be appropriate.


----------



## mjr (3 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> I think the point is that it's a target value rather than a reference value. That is, it's not derived from the 95% confidence limit of a reference population in the way that ranges for most analytes are, but rather is defined as the level above which intervention may be appropriate.


Almost. Still not exactly arbitrary.


----------



## Rickshaw Phil (3 Mar 2020)

*Mod note:*

A few posts have been cleaned up as it's just turning into a slanging match. No more personal stuff from here on. If the subject still can't be discussed in a civil manner I shall have to lock the thread.

Thanks.


----------



## slowmotion (3 Mar 2020)

Please do. Put us out of our misery.


----------



## Drago (3 Mar 2020)

Slick said:


> I assume your cholesterol levels are monitored and dealt with in another way?


Yes. If budgies mistake me for a cuttlefish I then suspect my cholesterol is slightly elevated.


----------



## mjr (3 Mar 2020)

No surprise the statin fans want to shut down discussion. Even if it works for you, this toxic fungus distallate derivative does have drawbacks for many and the OP had legitimate questions (which I tried to answer a few pages back).


----------



## Dave7 (3 Mar 2020)

Flying Dodo said:


> It's worth pointing out that when the NHS say a cholesterol level higher than 5 is bad, it's simply an arbitrary figure that's been picked.


Some 15-18 years ago the Doctor told me mine was 8.9 and I "was a heart attack waiting to happen". She wanted to put me on Statins. I said no thank you 
I went to a herbalist type guy who basically said bullsh*t.......you need to know lots more about the type of cholesterol etc and put me on serrapeptase. 6 months later I was down to 6.0. Aged 73 now and still going strong(ish)😊.
It may well be the Statins are 'the answer' for some people and good for them. On the other hand I think some Doctors prescribe them like sweeties.
For them or not I wish you all the best of health.


----------



## classic33 (3 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> No surprise the statin fans want to shut down discussion. Even if it works for you, this toxic fungus distallate derivative does have drawbacks for many and the OP had legitimate questions (which I tried to answer a few pages back).


No-one has tried to shut down discussion on medication. They've tried to give their views of what it's like for them.

I'm not on statins, but advice such as flush them down the toilet/just stop taking prescribed medication can't be taken seriously. Just because one thing didn't work for you, doesn't mean it'll work for no-one.

Lot 32 didn't work, for me, but I'll not be telling anyone not to take them based on that evidence.

All medication has side effects, as @vickster said, read the leaflet/ask questions if you're uncertain.


----------



## winjim (3 Mar 2020)

Skepticism is good and big pharma is far from blameless but saying don't take this drug because doctors are wrong and you should believe me because doctors say I'm right is just mental contortionism.


----------



## roadrash (3 Mar 2020)

mental contortionism..... @winjim , you seem to have spelled bolox wrong


----------



## vickster (3 Mar 2020)

The now departed had (well documented) side effects that affected bike training and he’s carried the chip for 30 years. If he hadn’t had side effects and the medication had worked for him as for others on this thread, perhaps he’d have been less evangelical  (and bitter?)


----------



## mjr (3 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> Skepticism is good and big pharma is far from blameless but saying don't take this drug because doctors are wrong and you should believe me because doctors say I'm right is just mental contortionism.


Well yes, and hopefully people will spot it as a controversial rant and treat that advice with due scepticism in turn, but sadly there are nuggets of truth in amongst the rants, the likes of me have suffered the denialism of some doctors more recently and I will probably have a chip on my shoulder about it too for as long as I live! I know they seem to work for some people but they really really don't for some.


----------



## mjr (3 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> No-one has tried to shut down discussion on medication.


Have you got slowmotion on ignore?


----------



## Pale Rider (3 Mar 2020)

I was put on Simvastatin a few years ago.

After a few months I got nasty muscle pain, particularly in both forearms.

The doctor binned the statin and put me on something else, but I cannot recall what.

Cholesterol levels dropped and have been fine more recently so I've not been taking anything.


----------



## The Jogger (4 Mar 2020)

Can anybody tell me why it's roughly 50/50 people who have heart attacks have high cholesterol? I would have thought it would have been closer to 100 % with high cholesterol.


----------



## Drago (4 Mar 2020)

I've had a heart attack and my cholesterol is within limits, and the good/bad ratio excellent.


----------



## vickster (4 Mar 2020)

The Jogger said:


> Can anybody tell me why it's roughly 50/50 people who have heart attacks have high cholesterol? I would have thought it would have been closer to 100 % with high cholesterol.


Lots of causes of atherosclerosis, smoking, alcoholism, high blood pressure, diabetes, autoimmune diseases etc


----------



## si_c (4 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> At the end of the day it's a personal choice. I can understand the pressures of doctors and family. One doctor told me 14 years ago that if I didn't take statins I would be dead within 2 years. Try telling that to your wife and still not take statins. The journalists and preeminent doctors who are exposing the truth about statins get regular attacks from the establishment. Its par for the course. Same on here.
> 
> Here's the thing. Having spent literally hours and hours researching this for my own benefit I absolutely believe that: -
> 
> ...



Nice to see you getting information from qualified sources. That guy is an out and out quack.


----------



## Drago (4 Mar 2020)

Whereas you're a graduate of the Royal College of Medicine, I presume?


----------



## roubaixtuesday (4 Mar 2020)

The Jogger said:


> Can anybody tell me why it's roughly 50/50 people who have heart attacks have high cholesterol? I would have thought it would have been closer to 100 % with high cholesterol.



Cholesterol is a risk factor, not the sole cause of heart attacks.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (4 Mar 2020)

Drago said:


> Whereas you're a graduate of the Royal College of Medicine, I presume?



Asking others to use reputable sources is not the same as claiming that you yourself are one.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Asking others to use reputable sources is not the same as claiming that you yourself are one.


What about asking others to use disreputable sources that use reputable sources? Is that allowed?

As I've written elsewhere: in gods we trust - all others show data.


----------



## classic33 (4 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> What about asking others to use disreputable sources that use reputable sources? Is that allowed?
> 
> As I've written elsewhere: in gods we trust - all others show data.


Dr. Eric Berg
https://quackwatch.org/cases/board/chiro/berg/


----------



## roubaixtuesday (4 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> What about asking others to use disreputable sources that use reputable sources? Is that allowed?
> 
> As I've written elsewhere: in gods we trust - all others show data.



Sure. 

Some interpretation or processing of data is almost always needed to make it useful information or knowledge. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid

Reputable sources of information, knowledge and wisdom are arguably far more important than data.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> Some interpretation or processing of data is almost always needed to make it useful information or knowledge. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/DIKW_pyramid
> 
> Reputable sources of information, knowledge and wisdom are arguably far more important than data.


How can that be? Without the data, the rest of the pyramid falls down. Blindly going towards where someone "reputable" tells you wisdom points without checking the foundations - the data - is to leave oneself open to quackery.

@classic33 - can you find any similar accusations against Dr Aseem Malhotra? He's far from the only doctor linked to an experimental diet. We've had no shortage of diet advice from statin advocates too.


----------



## classic33 (4 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> @classic33 - can you find any similar accusations against Dr Aseem Malhotra? He's far from the only doctor linked to an experimental diet. We've had no shortage of diet advice from statin advocates too.


Posted before and it's been removed, I'll not repost.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2020)

Never mind. https://life.spectator.co.uk/articl...-lifestyle-guide-based-on-distorted-evidence/ suggests he's probably about as bad as certain statin fans in taking a one-sided view of the evidence, just in the other direction.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (4 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> How can that be? Without the data, the rest of the pyramid falls down. Blindly going towards where someone "reputable" tells you wisdom points without checking the foundations - the data - is to leave oneself open to quackery.



It is absolutely impossible to check all the data yourself.

For the effectiveness of statins, that would involve literally millions of data points.

So you must rely on others to analyse that data and turn it into something informative. For instance, a scientific paper.

Then, you rely on someone else, typically a government regulator, to turn that into knowledge: that the sum total of all the information on the drug shows a positive reward/ risk ratio.

Finally, after many years of experience with multiple different statins, meta analysis is used to assimilate all of the knowledge together into the received wisdom, written as guidance on the usage in various populations.

Avoiding quackery is absolutely important, but cannot be done on the basis of analysing the raw data yourself.


----------



## Pale Rider (4 Mar 2020)

That 'doctor' certainly looks like a quack.

Reminds me of a barmy ex-member on here who was eating 100 bananas a day, or something like that.

Might have been a wind up, but if so it was a determined one.


----------



## vickster (4 Mar 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> That 'doctor' certainly looks like a quack.
> 
> Reminds me of a barmy ex-member on here who was eating 100 bananas a day, or something like that.
> 
> Might have been a wind up, but if so it was a determined one.


Not the dreaded Durianrider


----------



## si_c (4 Mar 2020)

Pale Rider said:


> That 'doctor' certainly looks like a quack.
> 
> Reminds me of a barmy ex-member on here who was eating 100 bananas a day, or something like that.
> 
> Might have been a wind up, but if so it was a determined one.


He's not a doctor and has no medical degree nor does he have any qualifications as a dietician. He has a "Doctor of Chiropractic" degree which means he spent a lot of time studying pseudoscience. Studying star trek doesn't make me rocket scientist in the same way he's not a doctor.

As for @mjr and @roubaixtuesday you are both coming at the same problem but from slightly different angles, and both imo, largely correct. You can't just trust a "reputable source" as who is to say who is reputable. It's a complicated problem, but fundamentally the current consensus is that we trust those who let others scrutinise their work and data before publishing in a journal where others can look, scrutinise and try to replicate or disprove.

The whole scientific endeavour is based on allowing the current understanding to be changed or rewritten when model which better fits the data comes along. Where statins are concerned the evidence we have at present overwhelmingly says that from a population perspective statins are a good thing and reduce mortality. This is not to say however that they are the best solution for everyone and you should take medical advice based on that - it may be that an exercise and healthy eating regimen works for you, but that's not the case for most people.


----------



## mjr (4 Mar 2020)

It doesn't work for me, sadly. I'm now on some expensive alternatives to statins.

I think where trusting the chain of authority falls down at the moment is that some of the regulators take money into account when deciding which treatments to approve for which situations and some of the side effects are underreported for obvious reasons, like exercise intolerance won't show in people who don't exercise and memory loss may only be noticed once treatment stops for another reason. There also seems to be huge resistance to accepting that symptoms are caused by statins, with patients made to suffer years of torment before it is accepted - and if you object and stop a statin unilaterally because you can no longer deal with it, the symptom doesn't get reported except through the MHRA Yellow Card system which I've never known produce a change.


----------



## classic33 (4 Mar 2020)

The Yellow Card system is there, for the person on the medication, for reporting any side effect(s) not listed. If enough people report the same issue(s), then changes may be made. At the least, it will get the side effect(s) noted.

As for cost, a 3,600% price increase was acceptable when Pfizer sold their licence for Phenytoin to Flynn Pharma.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> The Yellow Card system is there, for the person on the medication, for reporting any side effect(s) not listed. If enough people report the same issue(s), then changes may be made. At the least, it will get the side effect(s) noted.


The side effects of statins are mostly noted but I suspect underestimated. I also suspect Bill might agree with that, even without the more dramatic claims.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> the MHRA Yellow Card system which I've never known produce a change.



List of safety issues identified through the Yellow Card system

https://assets.publishing.service.g...Yellow_Cards_to_identifying_safety_issues.pdf


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> The side effects of statins are mostly noted but I suspect underestimated. I also suspect Bill might agree with that, even without the more dramatic claims.


And if more people reported side effects when taking them, or any medication, then the list of side effects would be more accurate.

Anything introduced into the body will have side effects. However not many people seem to be aware of possible side effects, and watch for any when being started on them.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> List of safety issues identified through the Yellow Card system
> 
> https://assets.publishing.service.g...Yellow_Cards_to_identifying_safety_issues.pdf


Exactly: no drugs I know there.

Just 25 drugs affected in 8 years, mostly with just advice updates.


----------



## vickster (5 Mar 2020)

There are lots of other ways in the UK and other countries for reporting side effects with drugs, branded and generic.

Indeed, market researchers are obliged to report any side effect /adverse event mentioned for clients' drugs mentioned in market research. However well documented, not just 'new' ones. Actually not just side effects, there's a very long list of potential issues that we are required to report including issues with packaging like a missing PIL.

As are MSLs and sales reps and any other pharma company employer who might receive a report of anything to do with their company's drugs/devices/products.

MHRA Yellow card is for UK, other countries have own similar system.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> There are lots of other ways in the UK and other countries for reporting side effects with drugs, branded and generic.


And for each channel, what % of patient reports are accepted as possible side effects and what % are dissmissed as, for example, unrelated cramp until the patient can no longer stand during episodes and makes a miracle recovery upon a locum stopping the tablets?


----------



## vickster (5 Mar 2020)

Muscle issues are a well documented potential side effect with statins so not sure what your point is?
Eg atorvastatin
https://www.drugs.com/sfx/atorvastatin-side-effects.html

All reports are sent to the pharma co pharmacovigilance department so all are accepted assuming the patient was on that company’s product


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> And for each channel, what % of patient reports are accepted as possible side effects and what % are dissmissed as, for example, unrelated cramp until the patient can no longer stand during episodes and makes a miracle recovery upon a locum stopping the tablets?


If the symptoms stop when you stop taking something, do you not say "No" if the same ones are mentioned as a possible at a later date.

Often the changes made may be that small you'll never notice. It's often an increase in the number of people reporting the same problem, which may raise it into the next level(1,000 to 100 for instance).

If no-one mentions problems they have, how are the manufacturers to know. One I mentioned earlier had a slight change of the other ingredients in the medication formulation, when the licence swapped hands. It took 18 months before they admitted there was a change in the overall formulation.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> Muscle issues are a well documented potential side effect with statins so not sure what your point is?
> Eg atorvastatin
> https://www.drugs.com/sfx/atorvastatin-side-effects.html
> 
> All reports are sent to the pharma co pharmacovigilance department so all are accepted assuming the patient was on that company’s product


The point is that doctors are not passing on all things reported to them, so it's not that "all reports are sent to the pharma co", so there should be some attempt to estimate the loss rate. It would be extremely foolish to act as if this is the first ever reporting system with zero data loss.

ETA: that drugs.com page is very odd. In the "consumers" section, it lists muscle pain under "rare" and joint pain as "not known", whereas lower down in the "healthcare professions" section, muscle pain is "common" and joint pain (arthalgia) is "very common" at about 1 in 9! Is it any wonder sufferers feel that we're being bamboozled about how common these are?


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> If the symptoms stop when you stop taking something, do you not say "No" if the same ones are mentioned as a possible at a later date.


1. I also suffered memory loss, so sometimes I probably didn't know if it was the same ones mentioned again, especially as every statin seems to have at least two names (Atorvastatin/Lipitor, Simvastatin/Zocor, Rosuvastatin/Crestor, Cerivastatin/Lipobay, ...), plus memory loss in general really knocks your confidence in your own judgment, plus some of them can change a person's moods - I don't know if that happened to me (how would I?) but I know it happened to a close relative.
2. As far as I can recall (see point 1), they get you back on the same one again by saying that the muscle problems were more likely just a coincidence, so you should try it again. Then the second time, it's that it's a different dose or ingestion timing or manufacturer or whatever. Then after it fails again, you get persuaded to try a different statin because it's newer/more-tried-and-tested/fat-soluble/water-soluble/whatever, especially if it's referred to by the brand name and not a name ending in "statin". Then it's all good for a few days until you're curled up in a ball with the pain next to your bike at the side of the road again.



classic33 said:


> If no-one mentions problems they have, how are the manufacturers to know.


How about independent/arms-length testing, publishing all the clinical test data instead of mainly those that run to successful completion and, in the case of statins, of actually having tested the drugs in patients who were also demonstrably making the recommended lifestyle and diet exercise changes rather than an average vulnerable cohort? Or properly following up on studies like the 2004 Sinzinger and O'Grady pilot that found only a small minority of professional athletes could tolerate any statins?

But I did mention the problems I had, plus I've heard of plenty of others with similar problems and yet still our experience is denied and dismissed with comments like "the evidence we have at present overwhelmingly says that from a population perspective statins are a good thing" while I have very little confidence that most problem reports are getting to the manufacturers or regulators in a way that gets counted and totalled up.


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> 1. I also suffered memory loss, so sometimes I probably didn't know if it was the same ones mentioned again, especially as every statin seems to have at least two names (Atorvastatin/Lipitor, Simvastatin/Zocor, Rosuvastatin/Crestor, Cerivastatin/Lipobay, ...), plus memory loss in general really knocks your confidence in your own judgment, plus some of them can change a person's moods - I don't know if that happened to me (how would I?) but I know it happened to a close relative.
> 2. As far as I can recall (see point 1), they get you back on the same one again by saying that the muscle problems were more likely just a coincidence, so you should try it again. Then the second time, it's that it's a different dose or ingestion timing or manufacturer or whatever. Then after it fails again, you get persuaded to try a different statin because it's newer/more-tried-and-tested/fat-soluble/water-soluble/whatever, especially if it's referred to by the brand name and not a name ending in "statin". Then it's all good for a few days until you're curled up in a ball with the pain next to your bike at the side of the road again.
> 
> 
> ...


Have you contacted the manufacturers directly?

If you've had problems with one, or a combination, did you never check what the known side effects were. This isn't have a go at you, it seems you're not alone on this bit.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> Have you contacted the manufacturers directly?


I can't remember! (see point 1 above) I filled in a yellow card, once that system started.



classic33 said:


> If you've had problems with one, or a combination, did you never check what the known side effects were. This isn't have a go at you, it seems you're not alone on this bit.


I did read the leaflet (and I know I did because it was before I started taking it so I still remember that bit!) because I came to it from other drugs that have to be taken two hours after and four hours before any other medication. The branded leaflet for Lipitor used to say to ask your doctor for a full list of side-effects but came with an unbranded additional leaflet (specially for the UK? or the EU?) listing dozens of possible symptoms, mixing trivial stuff like belching and pins-and-needles with the serious stuff like memory loss. Most of the serious ones were labelled as "uncommon" and when I ask something along the lines of "well, if each of these 20 (or whatever) are up to 1% of people, how many people suffer at least one of the serious side effects?" I'm more-or-less-told/persuaded to stop worrying about it, but in many more words. I did actually change doctors at one point early on after one told me with a straight face that atorvastatin had no side-effects.

I don't take offence at you suspecting I didn't read the leaflet. I suspect most doctors don't read the info either, because the current Lipitor leaflet (and I think the British National Formulary is similar) says "The usual starting dose of Lipitor is 10 mg once a day in adults [...]Your doctor will adapt the dose at intervals of 4 weeks or more. [...] " but I know so many people who have been started off on high or maximum doses, which I think increases the severity of any adverse reaction.

While I've got the current Lipitor leaflet open, I counted up that it says there are 16 "up to 1 in 10" side-effect symptoms (contradicting drugs.com as mentioned above), 30 "up to 1 in 100", 12 "up to 1 in 1,000", 3 "up to 1 in 10,000", 1 unknown severity and 4 possible - so somewhere between 1% and 100% of people have side-effects with this shoot, yet it's still overwhelmingly positive? Hmmm.

There is part of me which wonders what I'll do when I (or the hospital) run out of medications to try. I'll probably keep avoiding the statins and accepted the increased risk from using less effective drugs. Better to live a day on my feet than a year on my knees.


----------



## vickster (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> The point is that doctors are not passing on all things reported to them, so it's not that "all reports are sent to the pharma co", so there should be some attempt to estimate the loss rate. It would be extremely foolish to act as if this is the first ever reporting system with zero data loss.
> 
> ETA: that drugs.com page is very odd. In the "consumers" section, it lists muscle pain under "rare" and joint pain as "not known", whereas lower down in the "healthcare professions" section, muscle pain is "common" and joint pain (arthalgia) is "very common" at about 1 in 9! Is it any wonder sufferers feel that we're being bamboozled about how common these are?



If questions talk to pharmacist as well as doctor. If under hospital, ask to talk to hospital pharmacist 

All drugs originally have a brand and a scientific compound name (the name that the generics have)


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> Read the PIL in the pack, questions talk to pharmacist and doctor.


Yes, that standard suboptimal approach is exactly what I did and why I can no longer remember months of my life, scattered over years. Excuse me if I don't welcome that advice. Primary care doctors generally don't know what to do about statin side-effects and some won't refer to specialist hospital care when they should. I'd advise people to exhaust other treatments (including diet and exercise) before statins, don't start on a high dose and if they hit problems, don't accept a GP fob-off: if one's doctor of record won't listen, ask to see a different doctor, or go to a walk-in clinic.



vickster said:


> All drugs originally have a brand and a scientific compound name (the name that the generics have)


The brands should be outlawed, especially for drugs like statins that are known to bend minds. It's difficult enough keeping track of one's treatment while drug-addled without everything having many names. Yes, there will be at least one brand and compound name, but there are sometimes others: atorvastatin has at least three compound names and 14 brand names, for example.

Also, there used to be fark all support offered for coping with starting perpetual medication but hopefully that's changed with the greater awareness of mental health care.


----------



## vickster (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> Yes, that standard suboptimal approach is exactly what I did and why I can no longer remember months of my life, scattered over years.
> 
> 
> The brands should be outlawed, especially for drugs like statins that are known to bend minds. It's difficult enough keeping track of one's treatment while drug-addled without everything having many names. Yes, there will be at least one brand and compound name, but there are sometimes others: *atorvastatin has at least three compound names and 14 brand names, for example.*
> ...


?? other than Lipitor?

The compounds get a brand name for the first 20 years of existence (about 12 on market), for which the manufacturer gets exclusivity to market to recoup the investment (and make money for future investments).

There are some new anti cholesterol meds in development, can you explore trials if that's something you'd be prepared to try?

With any drug you should discuss the potential risk of AEs vs the benefit /risk of not treating esp if you have a chronic difficult to treat condition


----------



## si_c (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> While I've got the current Lipitor leaflet open, I counted up that it says there are 16 "up to 1 in 10" side-effect symptoms (contradicting drugs.com as mentioned above), 30 "up to 1 in 100", 12 "up to 1 in 1,000", 3 "up to 1 in 10,000", 1 unknown severity and 4 possible - so somewhere between 1% and 100% of people have side-effects with this shoot, yet it's still overwhelmingly positive? Hmmm.



A quick calculation gives around ~13.5% of people not having a side effect at all, with ~82% of people having one (or more) of the 16 1in10 side effects. Of course this could be impacted by other drug interactions so it may be that this number is higher or lower and without digging into the literature I couldn't say - also I don't know if they mean 1in 10 people have one or more of these side effects , or 1 in 10 people have each one of these side effects (I presume this is most likely) , so this is kind of a worst case scenario.


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

Forty three years tomorrow, I'll have been on Phenytoin. At one point at 800mg daily, recommended maximum now is 600mg. Some of the side effects of that would have me thinking twice if I were to be started on it now. Memory loss, hair loss, possible increase in seizure rate... The list goes on. 

What I'd not do is "advise" everyone to stop taking them, based on my experience. "This is what happened with me/I was like that", if someone has questions about it. Then they can say if what they are feeling is similar.


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

si_c said:


> A quick calculation gives around ~13.5% of people not having a side effect at all, with ~82% of people having one (or more) of the 16 1in10 side effects. Of course this could be impacted by other drug interactions so it may be that this number is higher or lower and without digging into the literature I couldn't say - also I don't know if they mean 1in 10 people have one or more of these side effects , or 1 in 10 people have each one of these side effects (I presume this is most likely) , so this is kind of a worst case scenario.


I've always taken that figure as being 1 in 10/1 in 100, taking that drug, has reported one or more of the side effects listed.


----------



## roubaixtuesday (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> atorvastatin has at least three compound names



I don't think this is correct.

The system is that manufacturers must quote the generic name (atorvastatin), but manufacturers may differentiate by brand (Lipitor). In the same way there are many manufacturers of champagne.

But the generic name is unique, at least as far as I'm aware.


----------



## winjim (5 Mar 2020)

roubaixtuesday said:


> I don't think this is correct.
> 
> The system is that manufacturers must quote the generic name (atorvastatin), but manufacturers may differentiate by brand (Lipitor). In the same way there are many manufacturers of champagne.
> 
> But the generic name is unique, at least as far as I'm aware.


It will have other names, like the IUPAC systematic name and probably some others based on its structure or synthetic precursors and whatnot, but you wouldn't use those when referring to it as a drug.


----------



## si_c (5 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> I've always taken that figure as being 1 in 10/1 in 100, taking that drug, has reported one or more of the side effects listed.


From a rigour perspective that wouldn't make a huge amount of sense, so my thinking is that it makes most sense that it would relate to each side effect individually, otherwise they wouldn't break down the risks further than 1 in 10 get one of these as that would encompass the lower risk ones too.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> ?? other than Lipitor?


Yes. I've had AtorTeva (from TEVA) and Zarator (from Pfizer) branded boxes in the past. I've no idea how many are currently seen in the UK and while trying to search for a list, I found overseas lists like https://medex.com.bd/generics/92/atorvastatin-calcium/brand-names that have even more brand names for atorvastatin than I thought existed.



vickster said:


> There are some new anti cholesterol meds in development, can you explore trials if that's something you'd be prepared to try?


Thankfully, I've not yet exhausted the approved non-statin drugs before I need to consider seriously that lottery. I've been offered one trial and I didn't like the sound of how that drug worked either.



vickster said:


> With any drug you should discuss the potential risk of AEs vs the benefit /risk of not treating esp if you have a chronic difficult to treat condition


There's at least two small problems with that:
firstly, from experience, I'm quite pessimistic about medics' understanding of risk, among GPs especially;
secondly, it shouldn't be a choice only between the risk of Adverse Effects/Events vs risk of not treating, but also the relative harm of whatever AEs you suffer versus the relative efficacies across different treatments - but all too often, people who stop statins aren't offered other treatments, although now thankfully ezetimibe seems to be more widely offered.

I do wonder how well we can discuss the risks when the evidence over AEs seems so incomplete and the risk of not treating rests on the lipid hypothesis, let alone the ever-changing targets for total and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, plus the disputes over LDL, vLDL and various other diagnostic tests which aren't routinely used in the UK yet - nor, to return it to the OP, is coronary calcium scanning.


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

classic33 said:


> What I'd not do is "advise" everyone to stop taking them, based on my experience. "This is what happened with me/I was like that", if someone has questions about it. Then they can say if what they are feeling is similar.


Good. We agree on that - but I can understand why someone who had suffered might. Can't you?

I feel that people reporting experiences is not quite enough when mind-bending drugs are involved. It didn't help me when I was suffering side-effects because I literally couldn't remember whether what I had felt was similar to what I was reading - and when feeling those things, I didn't remember that I had read about them from other heart support group patients!


----------



## mjr (5 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> It will have other names, like the IUPAC systematic name and probably some others based on its structure or synthetic precursors and whatnot, but you wouldn't use those when referring to it as a drug.


As well as the long IUPAC name, it is referred to as "atorvastatin" (which is what I think has to be on the UK boxes alongside any branding), "atorvastatin calcium" and "atorvastatin calcium trihydrate" - which, as far as I know, are all describing the same tablet. Maybe you or me wouldn't use those names when referring to it as a drug, but annoyingly even some medics do. It's not difficult to keep straight if you're in your right mind, but if you're not...


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

si_c said:


> From a rigour perspective that wouldn't make a huge amount of sense, so my thinking is that it makes most sense that it would relate to each side effect individually, otherwise they wouldn't break down the risks further than 1 in 10 get one of these as that would encompass the lower risk ones too.


You worded it better than me.

But if 1 in 100 reported side effects D, J & K, and 1 in 10 reported side effects E, I & L, that would make the 1 in 10 reported, more common.

"Lot 32", for me, has 10,000 listed/known side effects. The PIL for that would be a boring read.


----------



## classic33 (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> Good. We agree on that - but I can understand why someone who had suffered might. Can't you?
> 
> I feel that people reporting experiences is not quite enough when mind-bending drugs are involved. It didn't help me when I was suffering side-effects because I literally couldn't remember whether what I had felt was similar to what I was reading - and when feeling those things, I didn't remember that I had read about them from other heart support group patients!


I have the following, if you're interested
Pfizer: 01304 616161 
Zarator (Atorvastatin Calcium)
United Pharmacies: 01224 928494


----------



## winjim (5 Mar 2020)

mjr said:


> As well as the long IUPAC name, it is referred to as "atorvastatin" (which is what I think has to be on the UK boxes alongside any branding), "atorvastatin calcium" and "atorvastatin calcium trihydrate" - which, as far as I know, are all describing the same tablet. Maybe you or me wouldn't use those names when referring to it as a drug, but annoyingly even some medics do. It's not difficult to keep straight if you're in your right mind, but if you're not...


Yeah, that's just the particular form it's present as in the tablet. I might expect a chemist or pharmacist to refer to it like that, or even a medic when discussing it in certain situations, but probably not when talking to a patient.


----------



## winjim (9 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> I get my clinical biochemistry exam results next week. I'm keeping my own counsel until then, but I think I did alright on the lipid question. At least I gave a pretty full and comprehensive explanation although I'm not entirely sure I was answering the right question if I'm honest. We'll find out soon I suppose.


OK, probably a bit too late for this thread but if anyone wants to know about lipid metabolism, it turns out I may be just the person you need.


----------



## Fab Foodie (9 Mar 2020)

winjim said:


> OK, probably a bit too late for this thread but if anyone wants to know about lipid metabolism, it turns out I may be just the person you need.


Hurrah....another bleedin' expert, that's just what we need ;-)

Passed the test then?


----------



## winjim (9 Mar 2020)

Fab Foodie said:


> Hurrah....another bleedin' expert, that's just what we need ;-)
> 
> Passed the test then?


Yep. Did lousy on the essay questions, as I thought I had, but did better than expected on the short answer questions which made up for it. So that's exams done until next year, it's all projects, placements and portfolio for the immediate future.


----------



## Globalti (11 Mar 2020)

Bill Gates said:


> No doubt "The Knights" have contributed to this thread already and no doubt they have been totally disrespectful to me. I wouldn't know for sure because I have chosen to place them on ignore. Maybe they haven't. I don't want to know. "Th Knights" are the collective name I have given to those members on here who take statins and who have faith in their GPs who prescribed them to be necessary to help prevent CVD. Taken from the Moody Blues Song "Knight in White Statins" (my little joke)
> 
> Where to start.
> 
> ...



Exactly my feelings. I've seen two men of my age and older wrecked by statins; the younger of the two realised what was happening and threw his down the toilet. It took him six months to recover his former strength and vigour.


----------



## vickster (11 Mar 2020)

Globalti said:


> Exactly my feelings. I've seen two men of my age and older wrecked by statins; the younger of the two realised what was happening and threw his down the toilet. It took him six months to recover his former strength and vigour.


Why didn’t he return them to pharmacy for proper disposal


----------



## mjr (11 Mar 2020)

vickster said:


> Why didn’t he return them to pharmacy for proper disposal


He hates fish, too.


----------

