Statins - side effects

AlaninWales
Posts: 1626
Joined: 26 Oct 2012, 1:47pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by AlaninWales »

Vorpal wrote:
AlaninWales wrote:
softlips wrote: When we talk about the biggest positive impact in cardiology over our lifetimes, statins nearly always come out on top.

Really? So Statins have a bigger impact on cardiology than diet? Or environmental pollutants? Or exercise?

Can you link to the evidence for that please?

Evidence? Unfortunately, it's mixed, even if softlips is a fan.

There are large numbers of studiesthat show reduced cardiovascular events for those on statins. As result, most studies and literature reviews are like that linked above: very positive about the benefits.

When it comes to mortality, however, the efficacy of statins is limited. http://www.positivehealth.com/article/h ... -deception has a good summary, although the author may be biased against the use of statins, his statistics is sound. I've seen other experts put the mortality benefit at around 1 death prevented for every 500 people treated. Either way, it's much lower that you might expect, reading the first atricle. The first study seems to indicate that many of the side effects associated with statins have other causes, but https://www.statineffects.com/info/ found otherwise.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... ool=pubmed could be one reason for some of the differences in results.

I'm aware evidence is mixed and I have (at the moment) no skin in this game as my Dr is happy with my cardio exams. However it is such massive overstatement (IMO) by 'experts' that causes the current mistrust of such. I am fairly sure that diet and exercise have the greater potential for "positive impact" because their benefit is more than a suppressant of something that is assumed to be causative of cardiovascular disease, but would be interested if there is positive evidence that this apparent wellness pill is of more benefit.
User avatar
531colin
Posts: 16083
Joined: 4 Dec 2009, 6:56pm
Location: North Yorkshire

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by 531colin »

AlaninWales wrote:............
I'm aware evidence is mixed and I have (at the moment) no skin in this game as my Dr is happy with my cardio exams. However it is such massive overstatement (IMO) by 'experts' that causes the current mistrust of such. I am fairly sure that diet and exercise have the greater potential for "positive impact" because their benefit is more than a suppressant of something that is assumed to be causative of cardiovascular disease, but would be interested if there is positive evidence that this apparent wellness pill is of more benefit.


So, you want "Hotlips" evidence for her(?) massive overstatement. Have you got any evidence for your assertion?
healthy diet and exercise didn't get my cholesterol between the lines.....whether thats important or not, and love 'em or hate 'em, statins did. Were it not for the side-effects, i would still be gobbling them up.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

Mick F wrote:I'm now on fortnightly injections, and tomorrow is "Injection Friday" as I take them every other Friday.
Tomorrow will be my 19th injection ............ that's 38 weeks since I started.

I fell down the rabbit-hole of online discussions of my sickness again and amongst other things, spotted this Nov 2015 sceptic's post suggesting (among other things) that the PCSK9-inhibitor injections may lower LDL without improving outcomes: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2015/11/0 ... erolaemia/ - had anyone been told about that before starting treatment?

It also seems that the cost has fallen from £20k/year to £4-8k/year.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by Mick F »

If LDL causes blockages, and statins reduce the LDL ........ proven, so all is well eh?

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

Money?
Mick F. Cornwall
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

Mick F wrote:If LDL causes blockages, and statins reduce the LDL ........ proven, so all is well eh?

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

Money?

As I understand it, the theory supported by that sceptic is that it's not simply the LDL which causes the blockages (and after all, the lipid hypothesis is called that because it's still not proven), but some associated clotting factors, so reducing LDL without addressing the clotting factor imbalance is futile.

It seems like PCSK9-inhibition doesn't have side effects like statins, so yes, I guess the only issue is it's wasting some NHS money.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
User avatar
Mick F
Spambuster
Posts: 56359
Joined: 7 Jan 2007, 11:24am
Location: Tamar Valley, Cornwall

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by Mick F »

I seem remember reading some years ago, that FH people didn't suffer the heart attacks pro rata with respect to the LDL levels of non FH people.
Mick F. Cornwall
ianrobo
Posts: 512
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by ianrobo »

Mick F wrote:I seem remember reading some years ago, that FH people didn't suffer the heart attacks pro rata with respect to the LDL levels of non FH people.


OK you could say that where high levels of cholesterol and an heart attack means that one causes the other.

However how about fireman at a scene of a fire, did they cause the fire ?

Could it well be that you see high cholesterol because they are there to try and prevent the real cause of HA's ? the real cause being inflammation caused by smoking, bad diet (excessive omega 6 vegetable oils and carbs) etc and they have NOTHING to do with the HA itself ?

Inflammation raises cholesterol levels.

I could I've you a lot of links for this theory backed by science.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

Go on then. How does high LDL prevent heart attacks? It seems more analogous to smoke than firemen, but that doesn't fit the TINCS narrative.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ianrobo
Posts: 512
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by ianrobo »

mjr wrote:Go on then. How does high LDL prevent heart attacks? It seems more analogous to smoke than firemen, but that doesn't fit the TINCS narrative.


TINCS ?

LDL does not prevent heart attacks but is there trying to put out the fires of inflammation.

Here is a short sharp article on it

https://www.drsinatra.com/the-great-cholesterol-myth

plenty more out there including studies that show Statins only have a positive benefit in a few small amount of patients.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

ianrobo wrote:TINCS ?

The International Network of Cholesterol Sceptics - http://www.thincs.org

ianrobo wrote:LDL does not prevent heart attacks but is there trying to put out the fires of inflammation.

How do you think it's trying to do it? If LDL is indeed present due to inflammation, wouldn't that make it a good marker for being at risk anyway?

ianrobo wrote:Here is a short sharp article on it

https://www.drsinatra.com/the-great-cholesterol-myth

How's that sharp? It seems pretty dull, waving both hands at inflammation and offers no explanation of why FH sufferers (the original statin pateints) seem to exhibit higher risk of heart attacks.

Nevertheless, I had my C Reactive Protein tested when I first came across that idea. GP didn't seem to mind ordering that test. It's below 1. Next guess, please!

ianrobo wrote:plenty more out there including studies that show Statins only have a positive benefit in a few small amount of patients.

I don't see what efficacy of statins has to do with the unhelpful false analogy about firemen.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ianrobo
Posts: 512
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by ianrobo »

mjr wrote:How do you think it's trying to do it? If LDL is indeed present due to inflammation, wouldn't that make it a good marker for being at risk anyway?


Yes a marker but Statins are meant to lower the levels of a marker, ie. does nothin about inflammation. It is attacking the firefighters and not the fire.

But heck if you believe in statins and take one, carry on, suffer the side effects for no benefit at all. Thats your free choice to do so. I will state again the studies (For what they are worth) show no real benefit of them and IMHO they are a con by big pharma to make easy money.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

ianrobo wrote:
mjr wrote:How do you think it's trying to do it? If LDL is indeed present due to inflammation, wouldn't that make it a good marker for being at risk anyway?


Yes a marker but Statins are meant to lower the levels of a marker, ie. does nothin about inflammation. It is attacking the firefighters and not the fire.

If the LDL does not prevent heart attacks, aka does not fight the fire, then it's not a firefighter. It seems like another necessary contributor to the problems - it's more like the smoke that chokes you. Please stop using the misleading firefighter analogy!

ianrobo wrote:But heck if you believe in statins and take one, carry on, suffer the side effects for no benefit at all.

Perhaps you should show at least the minimum respect of reading the discussion or at least search it for my posts before directing such comments at me - if you have read about the problems I had taking statins and still make such a comment, then that's just offensive, wishing harm.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ianrobo
Posts: 512
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by ianrobo »

mjr wrote:
ianrobo wrote:
mjr wrote:How do you think it's trying to do it? If LDL is indeed present due to inflammation, wouldn't that make it a good marker for being at risk anyway?


Yes a marker but Statins are meant to lower the levels of a marker, ie. does nothin about inflammation. It is attacking the firefighters and not the fire.

If the LDL does not prevent heart attacks, aka does not fight the fire, then it's not a firefighter. It seems like another necessary contributor to the problems - it's more like the smoke that chokes you. Please stop using the misleading firefighter analogy!

ianrobo wrote:But heck if you believe in statins and take one, carry on, suffer the side effects for no benefit at all.

Perhaps you should show at least the minimum respect of reading the discussion or at least search it for my posts before directing such comments at me - if you have read about the problems I had taking statins and still make such a comment, then that's just offensive, wishing harm.


I am not wishing you harm but I believe by taking these horrid things you are not doing anything positive to your body. you have the side effects of these things and yet still continue because you believe high levels cause heart attacks, The problem is there is no science at all to back this up. All there are, are studies of some dubious cause.
User avatar
mjr
Posts: 20308
Joined: 20 Jun 2011, 7:06pm
Location: Norfolk or Somerset, mostly
Contact:

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by mjr »

ianrobo wrote:I am not wishing you harm but I believe by taking these horrid things you are not doing anything positive to your body. you have the side effects of these things and yet still continue because you believe high levels cause heart attacks,

Please read the thread: I am not taking them. I don't smoke. I don't consume excessive omega 6 oils, carbs or processed foods. I still have high LDL levels.

ianrobo wrote:The problem is there is no science at all to back this up. All there are, are studies of some dubious cause.

Which is still more evidence than either the "inflammation" or "firefighter" hypotheses have, isn't it?

Even so, personally, I'm not ruling them out, but it's bloody annoying that proponents of all these theories seem to act as if they have certainty that their preferred approach is the One True Way. Please remember that you're asking people to bet their lives - if you pretend that your way is definitely correct when you can't back that up with good science, then you're no better than Big Pharma or a cult leader.
MJR, mostly pedalling 3-speed roadsters. KL+West Norfolk BUG incl social easy rides http://www.klwnbug.co.uk
All the above is CC-By-SA and no other implied copyright license to Cycle magazine.
ianrobo
Posts: 512
Joined: 12 Jan 2017, 9:52pm

Re: Statins - side effects

Post by ianrobo »

maybe that is true and I will quote here another piece (maybe title is rather provocative) but you may have seen the recent fuss over coconut oil.

https://medium.com/@kevinmgeary/is-the- ... c8c98d28ea

the key takeaway here is that pure total measurement used to give out statins is a false marker of issues.

Yes I am no doctor or scientist but I read these things and I am 100% convinced that Statins for the vast majority of people given them (including my mum at 73) is a total waste of effort and cash.
Post Reply