Statins - side effects

[foxychick]

Quite simply the biggest con and the biggest earner for the medical companies in the history of medicine, i have had very high cholesterol for years and the doctor told me that i have a 28% chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years. My reply to my doctor was why dont you tell me that i have a 72% chance of not having a heart attack in the next 10 years, please read malcolm kendrick the great cholesterol con. I do not take statins and my total cholesterol has been around 7 for years, i rest my case.

[Mick F]

I asked the same question ............ if you go back though this lot.

I asked, "Why am I taking statins?"
Because you are reducing the chance of a stroke or heart attack.

"Am I at risk of a stroke or heart attack?"
No.

"Why am I taking statins?"
Because you are reducing the chance of a stroke or heart attack.

Circular argument.

Finally, I got the correct answer.
It's playing the odds game. Reduce the odds to as low as you can.

I'm not on statins any more, but on fortnightly injections of Repatha. No side effects so far.

[georgew]

I seem to have been unlucky as when using Statins I experienced nearly all the side-effects listed but what I was unaware of was that the drug compromises ones auto-immune system. I have to self-catheterise and I only learned this after suffering from endless UTI's which meant that I was always on antibiotics. First clue was fungal infections......something I had never had before but I had to do my own research as to the cause as the medics were not forthcoming. Since stopping the Statins I've had no further UTI's or fungal infections.

[Mick F]

Fungal infections.
I had a sore bum and groin for ages on and off over the years, and since stopping statins, it's been clear.
Thinking about it, I never used to have them. I was on statins for ten years, and for most of that time, I was sore.

Sudocreme (and Germolene on occasion) is a thing of the past now. I was using it regularly, even without cycling.

[NATURAL ANKLING]

Hi,

Fungal infections.
I had a sore bum and groin for ages on and off over the years, and since stopping statins, it's been clear.
Thinking about it, I never used to have them. I was on statins for ten years, and for most of that time, I was sore.

Sudocreme (and Germolene on occasion) is a thing of the past now. I was using it regularly, even without cycling.

Age!
I was on long term medication which I no longer take because it cleared up.
But there are many undisclosed side effects of meds.

I see you are now riding a suspension bike

[Mick F]

Suspension is only really any good at the front.
The rear isn't any better than a 700c bike.

Same saddles on both bikes. Brooks Pro.

Mr Moulton had the idea of a small wheeled bike. This brought with it, a harsh ride unless he used balloon tyres. Using narrow HP tyres requires suspension. With a TSR and others, the front suspension is very good, but the rear only has a hard rubber cone and although it soaks up the vibration, you could hardly call it comfortable for your "rear end". It's no more comfortable than my Mercian in that regard.

[ianrobo]

I seem to have been unlucky as when using Statins I experienced nearly all the side-effects listed but what I was unaware of was that the drug compromises ones auto-immune system. I have to self-catheterise and I only learned this after suffering from endless UTI's which meant that I was always on antibiotics. First clue was fungal infections......something I had never had before but I had to do my own research as to the cause as the medics were not forthcoming. Since stopping the Statins I've had no further UTI's or fungal infections.

no shock at all and because of the internet newer patients are no longer happy to simply take these horrid things just because a GP says so. If you GP or any doc ever prescribes something for you, research it, look at the sources of what you see and make up your own mind on it, you are the patient and the doctors can not force you to take anything,

It is about being the empowered patient and drug companies are petrified by more and more people doing it.

[geomannie]

Also seem to have has immune system issues while taking statins, constant viral infections and fungal infection ("ring worm") in the groin area. I never had the latter before or after I stopped taking the statins.

[Abradable Chin]

If PCSK9 injections reduces LDL too but without the side effects of statins, what's the issue?

The cholesterol and calorie hypotheses are both dead — it is time to focus on the real culprit: insulin resistance, Clinical Pharmacist JUL 2017
Similarly, the recent report of the efficacy of the latest ‘blockbuster’ drug evolocumab (Repatha, a PCSK-9 inhibitor) was underwhelming, despite the media hype. Published in The New England Journal of Medicine, the paper reported that evolocumab (together with a statin) lowered LDL-C by a whopping 60%, yet translated into only a 1.5% reduction in (non-fatal) CVD events[12]. Furthermore, evolocumab did not reduce total or cardiovascular mortality. Rather, there was a non-significant increase in mortality from CVD (n=251) compared with placebo (n=240), and a non-statistically significant increase in overall mortality in the experimental group (n=444) compared with placebo (n=426).

[Mick F]

Food for thought, but I'll carry on with the PCSK9 instead of the hateful statins that were making me ill. The injections aren't making me ill, and if they reduce my cholesterol to that of a normal healthy male, I won't be complaining.

[thirdcrank]

Suspension is only really any good at the front.
The rear isn't any better than a 700c bike.

Same saddles on both bikes. Brooks Pro.

Mr Moulton had the idea of a small wheeled bike. This brought with it, a harsh ride unless he used balloon tyres. Using narrow HP tyres requires suspension. With a TSR and others, the front suspension is very good, but the rear only has a hard rubber cone and although it soaks up the vibration, you could hardly call it comfortable for your "rear end". It's no more comfortable than my Mercian in that regard.

I'm 10 days late but was this intended for another thread? (No obvious connection with statins.)

[MikeF]

Suspension is only really any good at the front.
The rear isn't any better than a 700c bike.

Same saddles on both bikes. Brooks Pro.

Mr Moulton had the idea of a small wheeled bike. This brought with it, a harsh ride unless he used balloon tyres. Using narrow HP tyres requires suspension. With a TSR and others, the front suspension is very good, but the rear only has a hard rubber cone and although it soaks up the vibration, you could hardly call it comfortable for your "rear end". It's no more comfortable than my Mercian in that regard.

I'm 10 days late but was this intended for another thread? (No obvious connection with statins.)

It's in connection with "rear end infections" which some takers of statins seemed to have had - according to some above posts.

[Mick F]

Yes.
Sore bums. Fungal infections. Cycling.

Slightly off-topic, but not really.

Hi,

Fungal infections.
I had a sore bum and groin for ages on and off over the years, and since stopping statins, it's been clear.
Thinking about it, I never used to have them. I was on statins for ten years, and for most of that time, I was sore.

Sudocreme (and Germolene on occasion) is a thing of the past now. I was using it regularly, even without cycling.

Age!
I was on long term medication which I no longer take because it cleared up.
But there are many undisclosed side effects of meds.

I see you are now riding a suspension bike

[John100]

A lot of negativity and misinformation regarding stations. They have saved lives and continue to do so. The evidence for them having serious side effects or causing long term harm is poor to non existent. Of course each individual has to decide whether to take them, but please let that decision be based on rigorous scientific evidence and hopefully the advice of a doctor you trust.

[mjr]

A lot of negativity and misinformation regarding stations. They have saved lives and continue to do so. The evidence for them having serious side effects or causing long term harm is poor to non existent. Of course each individual has to decide whether to take them, but please let that decision be based on rigorous scientific evidence and hopefully the advice of a doctor you trust.

I submitted my side effect info to the Yellow Card system. I've no idea what becomes of that.

I'd not discourage anyone from trying statins if they're advised to do so, but be aware of the side effects which I feel are under reported and over dismissed by GPs.

Personally, I'm hesitant to take a drug long term which inhibits a bodily process that's a few steps removed from cholesterol production and even more steps removed from heart attacks. Are the cause and effect studies rigorous enough scientific evidence even though it depends on what remains a hypothesis, the lipid hypothesis?