Cycling UK Forum

Jdsk wrote: ↑21 Jun 2023, 8:56pm I'm sorry that people have suffered side effects but there's some very misleading advice in this thread, and following some of it would result in avoidable strokes and heart attacks.

I don't think Mick was being serious about taking statins as suppositories!

Feel free to challenge any other things you consider misinformation, but don't pretend that all meds work perfectly for everyone or that we know everything about what they all do.

Please feel free to send me a Private Message and I'll do my best to explain the jargon and the process.

Please do it in public. If people want a private explanation, I beg them to please contact the experts such as Heart UK's nurses on ask@heartuk.org.uk rather than exchange private messages with randoms off a forum.

mjr wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 12:10am

roubaixtuesday wrote: ↑21 Jun 2023, 8:43pm There is good evidence that many, perhaps nearly all reported side effects from statins are due to the nocebo effect - the same side effects are reported from placebo.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying- ... ebo-effect

The zombie study rises again! Previously discussed around viewtopic.php?p=1550383&hilit=Nocebo#p1550383 Only 60 subjects used from a pool of 300, selected in a way that excluded those most likely to suffer real side effects and with no attempt to accommodate memory side effects. It is not good evidence of what you say.

But it is excellent browbeating fodder.

When it comes to browbeating, you're doing pretty well, particularly on that thread you've just linked to.

The study is very good evidence that many reported side effects are due to the nocebo effect.

Of course, statins do have side effects, and some people are intolerant to them.

mjr wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 12:31am I don't think Mick was being serious about taking statins as suppositories!

I'll repeat my story, but cut it short.

I took Atorvastatin 80mg for ten years. In the later years on it, I was suffering terribly, and put it down to just "being old".
One day, with yet another packet of these things in front of me, I read the leaflet. In the ten years, I read it once or twice early on, but then just disposed of it in subsequent years.

I was shocked when I read the side effects list. I was suffering from every single one.
I made my mind up to stop taking them. Within a week, I felt like a young man again, so started on them again, but in a few days, all the symptoms came back, so I stopped and made an appointment with my doc.

"Why am I taking statins?" I asked.
"Because you have a cholesterol problem."
"Does it matter?"
"Yes, you are at risk of a stroke or heart attack."

He prescribed a lower dose.
Rubbish.
He prescribed a different drug.
Rubbish too.

I told him I wasn't going to take any statins again, and asked what he was going to do next.
He referred me to a specialist who set me up with Repatha ............ and from then on, I'm a young man again.

Stuff your statins!

Mick F wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 7:42am

mjr wrote: ↑22 Jun 2023, 12:31am I don't think Mick was being serious about taking statins as suppositories!

:D :D

I'll repeat my story, but cut it short. (And I've cut it even shorter to make my point)

Not so very long ago, there was a thread about members not being able to ignore your posts. I'd invite you to reflect on what was said.

viewtopic.php?p=1767666#p1767666

Out of curiosity has anyone been offered or taken an Apo(B) test from the NHS ?

Not as far as I'm aware. I was tested for liver function & cholestorol levels, some weeks after starting Atorvastatin.

I'm going to grab the nettle here and ask the question .
Are doctors "incentivised" to advise patients to take statins ? I ask it because of people i know with no family history,blood pressure or cholesterol issues were advised by their doctor to start taking statins.
A guy in my cycling club was telling me that his father in law,who is 101,was put on statins. I'm not a health professional but i can't work out how that can be justified.
My side effects of statins are upper body aches and pains.
There is an enzyme produced when taking statins that causes muscle inflamation. The enzyme level can be picked up in a blood test. I was told changing the type of statin would not alter the enzyme effect.

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm There is an enzyme produced when taking statins that causes muscle inflamation. The enzyme level can be picked up in a blood test. I was told changing the type of statin would not alter the enzyme effect.

The most commonly used biomarker for damage to muscle cells is creatine kinase in plasma (or serum). It's normally present within muscle cells and is released when they are damaged. That damage could be from inflammation. It doesn't "cause muscle inflammation".

https://labtestsonline.org.uk/tests/cre ... se-ck-test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_kinase

Jonathan

I’m still intrigued by this topic, because I still have not the slightest idea whether the statins I’m taking are doing anything useful at all, and I’m convinced that at an individual level the medics involved don’t know either!

Having been prescribed them by community cardiology doctor on a precautionary basis, because my father suffered heart troubles, despite me having ‘very good’ cholesterol readings at test after test, the GP is mega-reluctant to “un-prescribe” them. At every repeat prescription, I ask him whether they are doing me any good, and whether he feels able to change his advice that I should take them, and he is evasive about individual benefit, and declines to vary his advice, although I can tell that he lacks conviction (or, maybe he’s sick of me asking!).

Is there any way of finding out whether they are actually doing anything useful? At a population level, I get it, but individually?

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm...
Are doctors "incentivised" to advise patients to take statins ?
...

GPs in England operate under the Quality and Outcomes Framework. Here's the guidance for 2023/24:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/wp-content/u ... 023-24.pdf

How QOF points are converted into income isn't simple:
https://practiceindex.co.uk/gp/blog/qof ... 4-summary/
https://support-ew.ardens.org.uk/suppor ... prevalence

Jonathan

Jdsk wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:24pm

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm There is an enzyme produced when taking statins that causes muscle inflamation. The enzyme level can be picked up in a blood test. I was told changing the type of statin would not alter the enzyme effect.

The most commonly used biomarker for damage to muscle cells is creatine kinase in plasma (or serum). It's normally present within muscle cells and is released when they are damaged. That damage could be from inflammation. It doesn't "cause muscle inflammation".

https://labtestsonline.org.uk/tests/cre ... se-ck-test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creatine_kinase

Just so. CK is a detectable clue, not the cause. It showed up in one of my tests massively elevated when I was having problems, but only once, so it's not always present.

...

Nearholmer wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:32pm I’m still intrigued by this topic, because I still have not the slightest idea whether the statins I’m taking are doing anything useful at all, and I’m convinced that at an individual level the medics involved don’t know either!

Having been prescribed them by community cardiology doctor on a precautionary basis, because my father suffered heart troubles, despite me having ‘very good’ cholesterol readings at test after test, the GP is mega-reluctant to “un-prescribe” them. At every repeat prescription, I ask him whether they are doing me any good, and whether he feels able to change his advice that I should take them, and he is evasive about individual benefit, and declines to vary his advice, although I can tell that he lacks conviction (or, maybe he’s sick of me asking!).

Is there any way of finding out whether they are actually doing anything useful? At a population level, I get it, but individually?

Some of the clinical trials for statins actually directly measure arterial plaque thickness and how fast it grows. So I suppose in principle you could measure that.

Unfortunately you wouldn't have a "non statin" measurement to compare to, but it would in principle tell you directly how fast your arteries are clogging.

In practice you'd need to be rich enough to get regular scans and radiologists/ doctors to unripe them for you.

I know it's only one person,but my friend who was on statins couldn't exercise because of severe muscle pain. A blood test showed elevated levels of CK. Believing the muscle pain was the result of the statins he stopped them.
He said it took around 10 weeks to get the statins out of his system and get back to regular exercise.
I don't doubt his reasoning as he has been a medical professional for over 50 years and at present is a lecturer at medical colleges in Florida.

joeegg wrote: ↑23 Jun 2023, 4:16pm A guy in my cycling club was telling me that his father in law,who is 101,was put on statins. I'm not a health professional but i can't work out how that can be justified.

Sounds ludicrous. I am not a medic either but I work with GPs every day. One of them had an elderly father who was housebound and on 15 or more daily pills. In consultation with his father's GP they ditched most of them leaving his dad on a few thought most essential. His dad has a new lease of life. He can now mobilise far better and gets out the house on his own.

Another GP was discussing the same subject - reviewing patients long term meds. The first example she gave was should a 93 year old be on statins? There may well be a good reason for a 101 year old starting statins. I'd actually be interested to know, My understanding is that they reduce some risks in the long term. Talking a decade and more. With the best will in the world few 101 year olds will have a decade left.