Statins can be a real problem.
I developed a pain in one hip that progressed to both hips that progressed to cramps in every muscle in the body and sometimes all at once.
I couldn't hold a newspaper and would be writhing in agony as every effort to turn my body away from a cramp genereated another.
3 days off statins made me normal again.
The doctor later put me on statins every second day and now every day again.
Guess what?, yes I have these stabbing pains in my foot every 8 seconds for hours at a time and can't get more than 2 hours sleep a night.
So the statins are out the window again.
Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?
Started by
stocks
, Jul 25 2008 09:15 PM
24 replies to this topic
#22
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 07 March 2012 - 08:43 PM
Lipitor Paradox
A patient is faced with the cholesterol paradox.
Wait, I'm supposed to adhere to a cartoon character's advice and not my doctor's? Can you point me to some research that supports these statements? My doc had been after me for 2 or 3 years to take statins which I finally agreed to 60 days ago...
It won't take you 2 minutes to find the research on the internet that your doctor should know. See recent articles by Michael Pollan and the book Overdosed America. Search "Statins and diabetes". My video is from the research. I am a doctor, if that helps, but better to read. And when you're told about statin's lowering cholesterol, ask "That's fine, but will they prolong my life?" What minimal benefit statins may provide are offset by their negatives.
A patient is faced with the cholesterol paradox.
Wait, I'm supposed to adhere to a cartoon character's advice and not my doctor's? Can you point me to some research that supports these statements? My doc had been after me for 2 or 3 years to take statins which I finally agreed to 60 days ago...
It won't take you 2 minutes to find the research on the internet that your doctor should know. See recent articles by Michael Pollan and the book Overdosed America. Search "Statins and diabetes". My video is from the research. I am a doctor, if that helps, but better to read. And when you're told about statin's lowering cholesterol, ask "That's fine, but will they prolong my life?" What minimal benefit statins may provide are offset by their negatives.
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#23
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 11 August 2012 - 06:02 PM
Statin Nation
When we compare the rate of heart disease with cholesterol levels
across Europe, we find that no correlation between the two exists. For
example, men in Glasgow have lower cholesterol levels than men in
Switzerland, but the rate of heart attacks in Glasgow is more than two-and-
a-half times greater. This is by no means an isolated case since
there are more examples that contradict the idea cholesterol causes
heart disease than prove it.
A study published in the Lancet, included 5,754 patients from Australia
and New Zealand who had already had a heart attack. The average
cholesterol level of this group of people was around 5.7 mmol/l (Tonkin
et al, 2000). Data from the World Health Organization Global Infobase
(2009) shows that around the same time, the average cholesterol level
for the general population was between 5.5 mmol/l and 5.8 mmol/l.
People who suffered a heart attack had the same average cholesterol
level as the general population.
A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology included
8,500 men with existing heart disease (Rubins et al, 1995). The
average cholesterol level for this group of people was around 5.5
mmol/l, which (again, according to the World Health Organization) is
around the same or even slightly lower than the average cholesterol
level for the general population.
Towards the end of last
year the results of the JUPITER trial were published (Ridker et al, 2008).
It was widely reported in the media that the statin used in this trial
reduced the risk of serious cardiovascular events by 44%. However,
this was a relative percentage reduction. If we look at what has been
referred to as ‘hard cardiac events’ (heart attack, stroke, or death
from cardiovascular causes), 1.8% of the people in the placebo group
suffered these events compared with 0.9% in the statin group (Hlatky,
2008). (IE, 99% RECEIVED NO BENEFIT.)
http://www.statinnat...ith_Statins.pdf
When we compare the rate of heart disease with cholesterol levels
across Europe, we find that no correlation between the two exists. For
example, men in Glasgow have lower cholesterol levels than men in
Switzerland, but the rate of heart attacks in Glasgow is more than two-and-
a-half times greater. This is by no means an isolated case since
there are more examples that contradict the idea cholesterol causes
heart disease than prove it.
A study published in the Lancet, included 5,754 patients from Australia
and New Zealand who had already had a heart attack. The average
cholesterol level of this group of people was around 5.7 mmol/l (Tonkin
et al, 2000). Data from the World Health Organization Global Infobase
(2009) shows that around the same time, the average cholesterol level
for the general population was between 5.5 mmol/l and 5.8 mmol/l.
People who suffered a heart attack had the same average cholesterol
level as the general population.
A study published in the American Journal of Cardiology included
8,500 men with existing heart disease (Rubins et al, 1995). The
average cholesterol level for this group of people was around 5.5
mmol/l, which (again, according to the World Health Organization) is
around the same or even slightly lower than the average cholesterol
level for the general population.
Towards the end of last
year the results of the JUPITER trial were published (Ridker et al, 2008).
It was widely reported in the media that the statin used in this trial
reduced the risk of serious cardiovascular events by 44%. However,
this was a relative percentage reduction. If we look at what has been
referred to as ‘hard cardiac events’ (heart attack, stroke, or death
from cardiovascular causes), 1.8% of the people in the placebo group
suffered these events compared with 0.9% in the statin group (Hlatky,
2008). (IE, 99% RECEIVED NO BENEFIT.)
http://www.statinnat...ith_Statins.pdf
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#24
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 08 June 2013 - 03:02 AM
The Rise and Fall of Heart Disease
A 2012 paper called “An epidemic of heart disease” by David Grimes, a British doctor, could hardly make clearer how little we know about the cause of heart disease. Grimes points out that before 1920 heart disease was almost non-existent, that it rose sharply from 1930 to 1970 and since 1970 has declined sharply, at roughly the same rate that it rose. Both the rise and the fall are mysteries, says Grimes, in agreement with what I told the cardiologist. The rise and fall contradict all popular explanations. Heart disease cannot be due to obesity or wealth — both increased substantially at the same time heart disease fell sharply. Nor was the decline due to government intervention:
“There [has been] no obvious effect of statin therapy or other medical intervention,” Grimes continues. Yet statins continue to be prescribed in very high amounts and very great expense. The NNT (number of people you need to treat to save one life) is often in the thousands, he noted.
http://blog.sethrobe...ase/#more-10555
A 2012 paper called “An epidemic of heart disease” by David Grimes, a British doctor, could hardly make clearer how little we know about the cause of heart disease. Grimes points out that before 1920 heart disease was almost non-existent, that it rose sharply from 1930 to 1970 and since 1970 has declined sharply, at roughly the same rate that it rose. Both the rise and the fall are mysteries, says Grimes, in agreement with what I told the cardiologist. The rise and fall contradict all popular explanations. Heart disease cannot be due to obesity or wealth — both increased substantially at the same time heart disease fell sharply. Nor was the decline due to government intervention:
“There [has been] no obvious effect of statin therapy or other medical intervention,” Grimes continues. Yet statins continue to be prescribed in very high amounts and very great expense. The NNT (number of people you need to treat to save one life) is often in the thousands, he noted.
http://blog.sethrobe...ase/#more-10555
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
#25
stocks
-
- Traders-Talk User
- 4,550 posts
Member
Posted 06 November 2014 - 06:53 AM
Doctors refusing to prescribe statins
Two in three family GPs refuse to follow NHS advice to give statins to 40 per cent of adults, survey finds
http://www.telegraph...be-statins.html
Two in three family GPs refuse to follow NHS advice to give statins to 40 per cent of adults, survey finds
http://www.telegraph...be-statins.html
-- -
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
Defenders of the status quo are always stronger than reformers seeking change,
UNTIL the status quo self-destructs from its own corruption, and the reformers are free to build on its ashes.
