I saw the following article is Cardiovascular Business today. It seems that up to 1 in 3 may not be taking their prescribed statins because of the negativity around statins in the media and elsewhere. As a result many people may be shortening their lives. It is compared to the issue around vaccinations some years ago:
Statins And Fake News: I saw the... - British Heart Fou...
Statins And Fake News
MichaelJHHeart Star
Written by
MichaelJH
Heart Star
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Read more about...
99 Replies
•
Thats sad.
Lots of people don't, not just statins.
Truth: "Patients don't like taking medications".
That GP in Cheshire was anti-Statin. He is a GP.
As far as I was aware, he's not struck off.
That's his "opinions".
Opinions are meant to be diverse.
If one drug works for you, that's great.
But that doesn't mean everyone else is so lucky.
I hate taking medications, but I still take it, but the truth is that my QOL declined.
Medications tend to remove the problems only to replace with other problems.
Not exactly a win win situation.
You commented on hideous side effects, too.
Those things scare people.
You are far more brave than me!
• in reply to
I think patients just need to be upfront with their docs re medications. I dont have an issue with people refusing treatments, just the ones that dont tell their docs what they are or are not doing
• in reply to
My doctors/consultants tell me drugs are so awful themselves.
They said, "you know these do have a lot of side effects. . . Drug company representatives tell you all the nicest things...but these are ...."
Some genuine consultants say as it is.
They probably need to be honest in case patients organs get damaged and give rise to a lawsuit, who knows?
At least, they pay for their insurance, right?
• in reply to
Drugs “may” have side effects. There are many, many people taking medications who suffer no side effects. Side effects are not guaranteed!!!
• in reply to
I completely agree!!
seasider18• in reply to
My GP says that about a third of patients do not take the medications prescribed or collect them from the pharmacy.
I hope those people who did that first gave the drugs a try, monitored their reactions and had a hands on risk and benefits discussion with a specialist in the light of personal experience. To join one side or another of this issue based on tweets and conspiracy theory is in my view pure ignorance. People have a right to act ignorantly but by joining caucuses that promote their ignorance i think that public interest has to move in much more effectively than it does.
In other developed countries, they give, singly, not all of them at once.
Sensible? I would have said so.
As we can see from the measles outbreak problem, the consequences can be quite serious
A lot of people have strong feelings for and against statins and in which circumstances they make a statistical difference. Taking medication has to be a joint decision. Tbe patient is part of the team.
When I asked my GP would she take Statins, reply was if My Heart was in the same condition as Yours I would certainly take them !! Good enough for me. Oh and I have been down the route of High Creatine and it took 3 different Statins before I got the right one for me.
Why would you not take something that is prescribed by a GP/ Cardiologist just because of something you read in a Newspaper or Magazine.
On the weekend I read in a Newspaper about a revolutionary New treatment for curing Brain AVMs this has been available since at least 2004 I know I had it.
I sometimes wonder if this an Age thing when I was growing up at least 60 years ago, you went to the Chemists and got medication to fix your problem and it normally did in a week or so. Now we have so many Preventive Medications we take for Life different world now a days !!
Thank-you once again for a useful link.
I am on my fourth variation of statins and I hate them and teh effects with a passion, BUT if my cardiologist says to take them then reluctantly I will. My GP is not a fan of them and agrees that for some people they cause more issues than they resolve. Personally I think they are just another drug that big Pharma are pushing without regard to the well known and obvious side effects. However as before, if my Cardiologist says take them, and he has, then I will.
Sunnie2day• in reply to
You've neatly described my feeling on statins and how I will feel if the cardiologist decides I should be on them (so far he's only said 'perhaps in the future').
Dovaston• in reply to
Why not try Ezetimibe if you have problems with Statins .. worked with me 😊
I’m no expert, but I am reading articles explaining that our bodies need cholesterol especially as we get older.
There is no real evidence that Statins prolong life or prevent heart attacks.
They cause so many bad side effects in SOME people.
Look at Stopped our Statins on Facebook.
I totally agree with you. It’s no longer fake news, there are many medical studies out there now proving cholesterol isn’t the cause, and now proving statins cause calcification of arteries. When older bigpharma studies were looked at by others they showed people with lowest cholesterol died first. Our bodies produce it because we need it. Statins have been around for many many years now yet heart disease cases continues to climb. If cholesterol were the answer to heart disease then why do so many people with normal cholesterol suffer too. It’s inflammation that’s important plus your triglycerides and Lp(a) numbers.
Would agree with all that you said, but I have not come across the calcification link must do some more reading 
Just google statins and calcification and you’ll be amazed. The thing that got me most is that even now they say “ maybe” the calcification is what stabilises the plaque! 😱 I’d of hoped after all these studies they might KNOW this not wonder about it. They are playing with our health.
Hi
Heart Disease has risen due to people living longer maybe the Statin Effect or the Beta Blocker Effect or even people stopping Smoking. It's easy to look for something and then hang on to it especially if it fits in with your thinking !
" NICE also has questions to answer in that they do not do their own research and rely entirely on data furnished by the drugs companies and the MHRA! "
Just a question but how else could NICE evaluate, these are the Best Specialists we have for evaluating Worldwide data. The only way you could have come to your conclusion is by evaluating Data.
Sorry but all the Data from Experts points to Statins being of value in particular to people with a proven problem. I try to err on positivity rather than being a cynic !!! -)
Trouble is those studies were financed by the very company who make statins, and they didn’t allow anyone else to see the raw data. How can anyone do a proper evaluation if they can’t see raw data, plus if it was all positive they would want everyone to see that data surely. Some of those studies ( and only some) have been looked into more now although it’s many years since they were done, and this is why now there are so many unanswered questions. The outcomes were not showing positivity! They just caused more scepticism.
Simple but not cheap, set up a lab to do their own research, repeat some of the test that Big Pharma do with their own people, check the results.
"Data from Experts" which experts? who were they working for? who funded them? which data did these experts use to form their opinions? . Unless they have done their own trials / tests or have access to verified independent data obtained from sources which are not controlled by the big Pharmaceutical then their opinion is worth no more than that which you hear from the drug manufacturers.
If you want to see a more understandable example of what happens when you allow a manufacturer to be responsible for its own testing and resulting self certification as being fit for purpose look no further than the Boeing MAX737.
It does not matter aircraft manufacturer, car manufacturer, Pharma it's all about Shareholder value anything and everything can and will be sacrificed to the bottom line. That's not me being cynical (which after some 70 odd years I am) that's fact. The only consideration that will be taken into account before a big Corporation gets economical with the truth (i.e lies) will be " will we be caught and if so how much will it affect our profitability".
Monsanto got it right, they have been lying through their teeth for years about glycophosphate (which in itself may have a bearing on heart health) and just before the Shareholders were about to take a big hit because the truth was beginning to come out they sold out to Bayer. The original Monsanto shareholders and directors are to quote an expression laughing all the way to the bank, they will not give a damn about how much it may be proved that Glycophosphate has harmed people or the environment it's now some one elses problem.
There is something else people should consider,
The problem with todays world is not man made global warming, that is a myth, scam, scaremongering call it what you will.
The problem is over population, I came to that conclusion forty odd years ago and I do not consider myself to be much if any above average intelligence so it's quite certain that other people with power and money have also come to that conclusion.
I have no doubt that population reduction is an agenda for some, what better way to achieve it but to cause disease ailments that will shorten life spans reduce fertility etc.and at the same time provide solutions and medications that do nothing to cure people of these diseases while at the same time making a lot of money for a few people.
I agree with the Population Growth Theory, in the past WW1 & then WW2 kept the world population under control. Oh and lets not forget Spanish Flu. If as you suggest big Pharma is all wrong why did they bother with researching Flu Inoculations
Fake News is that Boeing self certify a plane fit to fly !! Please check your facts before posting something as Fact.
Technically you are correct the complete aircraft was certified by the FAA some fifty years ago as the 737-100. Since then every 737 model has been certified based largely on grandfather rights i.e the aircraft is submitted to the FAA as pretty much the same as the previous model except for these differences, which would be examined and certified in relative isolation by the FAA .
In the case of the MAX the same procedure was followed except that even more of the certification work was handed to Boeing i.e self certification. So yes the FAA is the certifying authority in the sense that it applies a rubber stamp to the airframe manufacturers work, however it is effectively self certification by Boeing.
See aviationcv.com/aviation-blo....
I don't believe any self respecting aircraft engineer would have certified the design of the MCAS system and the FAA doesn't appear to have asked the question why was MCAS necessary if the aeroplane was basically the same as previous aircraft aerodynamically .
I am pleased to say 100% correct Grandfather rights are a very important issue in Law dealt with many a case involving Grandfather Rights.
• in reply tocachaciero
You are entitled to your paranoid opinions. Perhaps you really need to get the “big pharma” thing a rest. A lot of research would not get done without money from “big pharma“. Like a lot of Government agencies, these days, the MHRA is funded by the fees it charges for its services. Would you really expect to get a driving licence without paying for the rest? If this sort of system was not used then taxes would need to increase to fund regulatory activity. The UK Brainbank Network, whose management group I sit on, was at one time fully funded by the Medical Research Council. Now we are having to move to a cost recovery model. Research costs money and there is less in the public purse to fund it.
As a good source of information on the MHRA and its work, this may be of interest: assets.publishing.service.g...
Of course, for those who trust nobody, no amount of evidence will ever be sufficient.
cachaciero• in reply to
Paranoid?? moi? I have been called some things in my time, stubborn, pig headed, rebel and a few other epithets which I will not repeat here.
I thank you for the link I shall go and read with interest. "the MHRA is funded by fees it charges for its services" interesting services to who and for what presumably there should be annual accounts somewhere must do some more research.
Yes research does cost money a lot of money i am well aware of that, however where big money flows organisations that are not always so honest and transparent follow it.
When I read the following it makes me think about medication in a whole new light.
"There is no doubt that the pharmaceutical giants frequently act with criminal negligence. A 2018 report by the U.S consumer rights group PublicCitizen showed that between 1991 and 2017 Big Pharma paid out over $38.6 billion in criminal and civil penalties. That was just in the U.S.
While these sums are unimaginable for most of us they mean little to an industry that generates nearly $1.2 trillion annually. The odd multibillion dollar lawsuit for killing people here and there is little more than an occupational hazard for Big Pharma and well within their profit margins.
Big Pharma is a corporate venture that has absolutely no vested interest at all in curing disease. They became acutely aware of the problem of cures in 2015 when Gilead Sciences (GILD) developed a 90% effective cure for Hepatitis C.
Initially the $12.5 billion in revenue from the GILD cure was welcomed. However, the problem with a cure, from an investment perspective, is that it cures people. The former Hep C patients no longer needed any treatment, and revenues fell off a cliff as more and more people didn’t require medication. What was even worse were the rapidly diminishing numbers of people spreading infection, creating fewer and fewer new customers.
The global investment firm Goldman Sachs are one of the world’s leading investors in the pharmaceutical industry. They were concerned about the potentially catastrophic financial effects of curing people. They saw that advances in medical science threatened to make people well and thus reduce their return on investment (ROI.) In 2018 they issued their report The Genome Revolution. In it they questioned if curing disease was sustainable from a business model perspective. Their analyst’s conclusions make horrifying reading.
The potential to deliver ‘one shot cures’ is one of the most attractive aspects of gene therapy, genetically-engineered cell therapy and gene editing. However, such treatments offer a very different outlook with regard to recurring revenue versus chronic therapies ...
GILD is a case in point, where the success of its hepatitis C franchise has gradually exhausted the available pool of treatable patients ...
In the case of infectious diseases such as hepatitis C, curing existing patients also decreases the number of carriers able to transmit the virus to new patients, thus the incident pool also declines … Where an incident pool remains stable (eg, in cancer) the potential for a cure poses less risk to the sustainability of a franchise.
While the Machiavellian logic of this analysis may be difficult for most to stomach, it makes sense from a business perspective. The ideal patient is never cured and cures are to be avoided wherever possible. Cancer treatment is fantastic because the ‘incident pool is stable’ and there is ‘less risk to the sustainability of the franchise.’ The last thing Big Pharma wants to see is anything that looks remotely like a cure for cancer.
Now you may say I am paranoid but that does have a ring of fact and truth about it and so yes Big Pharma does put a lot of money into research and development but with what aim providing cures or a continuing money stream?
I bow to your knowledge, amazing research! You little rebel. ;)))
"Statins being of value in particular to people with a proven problem"
Yes - a very small proportion of people, who are at high risk or heart attack, might get a net improvement on total mortality by taking Statins.
Did you know that many people think doctors give prescriptions just to get patients out of their surgeries?
When I lost four stone I made an appointment with the GP for review, and she took me off statins.
• in reply toS11m
For good reasons, I guess.
Statins do make some people feel ill. For me it was the BP medicine that gave me chest pains and depression. I weaned myself off and started with a combo that worked for me. I was told I was just being fussy concerning the second set of symptoms. It's great if you can take what's prescribed but sometimes it takes months and months of tinkering. My GP is following me. I take Indian snakeroot, hawthorn, hibiscus twice a day. BP is 124/76. My cardiologist had prescribed an alternative but the insert said it shouldn't be used with an auto suppressent ointment I use. She said she'd talk to her pharmacist and get back to me... That was months ago. Lol. I find THAT sad.
Used to be 5-20 MG was adequate for lipator... Now the standard is 80mg. No variation. Lol. Whose making money? Don't be a sheep READ EVERYTHING. Even the evil internet. Oh wait... I'm here now. 😁
• in reply to
I am only on 10 mg of atorvastatin.
• in reply to
Excellent. That's all I take too although prescribed 80 MG. Total cholesterol is 180.
• in reply to
I am only prescribed 10 mg!
Most heart attacks occur in coronary lesions with mild liminal narrowing, large necrotic cores and thin fibrous caps. Statins decrease the necrotic core and increase calcification, thus stabilizing the plaques and preventing heart attacks. Unfortunately they are not a magic pill and people with established heart disease who do not make changes to the lifestyle that led them to develop the disease in the first place will go on to develop more disease.
Inflammation is the main driver of heart disease but it is the small dense LDL particles that lodge in the artery walls and form the blockages so YES heart disease has a lot to do with cholesterol.
Many people with normal cholestrol levels, myself included, have developed heart disease but I believe that is because the normal levels are way to high.
Both the Asteroid and Reversal statin studies showed halting of athersclerosis progression and even some reversal of coronary disease with LDL levels below 50mg/dL so if the normal level is 100mg/dL a lot of "normal " people will develop heart disease.
I recently read a report stating that the best results for halting athersclerosis progression or indeed reversing the disease were in people with significantly improved lipid profiles. These people had low LDL and high HDL cholesterol, had a diet high in alpha - linolenic acid and were on statin treatment for a least 3 years.
How many heart disease patients actually make these changes though rather than just use the medical system as the ambulance at the bottom of the cliff and go back to their old habits.
I have survived for 3 years now since my stenting. I believe this is due to some lifestyle changes but also to the medication I take. Yes you can debate whether or not statins should be taken by people without established cardiovascular disease but for people who have it I think statins are a vital part of our long term treatment and I will continue to take mine and no I am not funded my any drug companies in case your wondering?
• in reply tofergusthegreat
I agree with your points fergusthegreat. I have a fib and have not had an a fib event in the year since I started a statin drug( lipitor) It makes me wonder if the anti- inflammatory effect indirectly is helping me out in the a fib world.
fergusthegreat• in reply to
I don't really know anything about afib but if inflammation does play a role, then yes I think the statins could well be helping as they have been shown to reduce inflammation. Specifically atorvastatin and rousovastatin have been shown to reduce Lp-Pla2 which is a measure of inflammation within coronary plaques and as such may be a way that they help to reduce heart attacks.
Where is the accepted evidence for MMR not working?
cachaciero• in reply to
Accepted? by who, you, me, the point I was trying to make is that some people do not trust the authorities that regulate the system so given the lack of readily available alternatives they will choose not to have it. I am not saying that MMR is not good or dangerous it's not something I have researched in any depth so I do not have an opinion that I would like to go into print with. However the continued resistance by the NHS to even considering alternatives and the insistance by big pharma that all is good makes me suspicious.
• in reply tocachaciero
You did give a view that was for single vaccinations and not MMR. If you have done no research then that type of statement would be better not to be given. You latest remarks about “big pharma” are not helpful in promoting herd immunity.
cachaciero• in reply to
That reply is disingenuous single vaccinations i.e three single vaccinations should not impact herd immunity any more or less than protection with MMR. It seems to me that you are extremely defensive as regards big pharma do you have a financial interest with any of the big Pharmaceutical companies?
• in reply tocachaciero
“The NHS does not recommend single measles, mumps or rubella vaccines, as there's no evidence to support their use or to suggest that they're safer than MMR.
Having single vaccines could also put your child at risk of catching measles, mumps or rubella in the time between the doses of each of the vaccines.“
“The idea that making single vaccines available would lead to more parents vaccinating is bogus. When single vaccines were last used in the UK, coverage was only around 60%. Within a few years of the introduction of MMR, it had soared to over 90%.“
Sorry to disappoint you but I have no financial interest in any pharmaceutical company.
I am a frequent participant in clinical research (diabetes and cardiac health). I am also a co-applicant on 3 clinical studies (dementia), 1 policy research unit (cancer awareness, screening and early diagnosis) and a data hub. I am also an NIHR Patient Research Ambassador and help manage the UK Brain Bank Network. I have also done some policy work on dentistry for the Department of Health and Social Care. Good to keep busy in retirement and assist where I can.
cachaciero• in reply to
Nice to know that I am not conversing with a Troll for big Pharma
Retirement that list sounds like a full time occupation all power to you.
• in reply tocachaciero
My wish is that more people gave their time to real research instead of internet research!
cachaciero• in reply to
I suspect that the number of people that could actually do real research swim in a very small pool and it seems to me that todays world does not encourage people to jump into it.
• in reply tocachaciero
The pool is large and opportunities are there for people who want to further knowledge by giving their time.
Well said!
I agree with you ! The public are made to believe in certain medications like Statins and the ones that don't are made out to believe in 'conspiracy theories ' . IMO it's good and healthy to have an open mind especially to matters regarding your health .
Before we were told meat was really good for us . Meditation and yoga was laughed at. Vegetarians and Vegans were made out to be freaks . Now the medical profession tell us to eat '5 aday' and to eat less meat. Some GPs prescribe meditation and yoga classes.
Well as regards diet the medical profession are still at odds with one another. I have to say the only Doctor who made sense to me on this matter was Dr Atkins he of the Atkins diet. His basic premise was that the human body had adapted over millennia to natural omnivorous diet where food intake might be hot but it was not pre-processed or highly refined prior to consumption. The body can extract energy from fat so carbohydrates are not strictly necessary. His recommendation was lots of veg, meat dairy but nothing with refined sugar and gentle exercise. Back in 2004 I was. Away from home living in a Hotel and I decided that I would put the Atkins diet into effect. Breakfast was included in the room rate so every morning I would have bacon eggs mushrooms etc, no bread or cereals fruit juice grapefruit tea no sugar. Dinner consisted of cheese and Ryvita half a bottle of red wine. Most nights I would walk across the Hoe to a local pub consume a couple of points and walk back, one night a week I would forgo the cheese and biscuits and have a fish supper.
In six weeks I reduced my weight by some 2.5 stones At that time I already had a heart problem but did not recognize what it was for another three years. In 2007 hospitals and cardiologist did not like the Atkins diet it was almost a swear word but in terms of weight reduction it worked for me. In retrospect it was effectively a Keto diet way before his time . It is also worth reading up on the work that is being done on the gut biomass it's effects and the effects that modern diets have on that, fascinating there is a train of thought that the inflammatory disease that affects artery's may well emanate from the gut. Food for thought, ABC Australia have a couple of documentary's on Youtunes on this subject worth a look.
A strange diet indeed! You mention a heart condition but, to my knowledge, have never mentioned what it is? Do you mind enlightening us?
After his death a medical report showed Dr Atkins had a history of heart problems!!
My sister tried it but gave up with blinding headaches after two weeks. After recovering she went to WW and lost the weight. She has been at target weight for some years now.
Short version
2006 Angiogram disgnosed blocked LAD angioplasty
Magic good until 2015.
2015 angiogram as a result of some arrhythmia.
2016 booked for pressure wire check doctor decided in a panick that an angioplasty was needed now, extremely painful procedure which left me damn near crippled I had gone from painfree prior to an inability tow walk more than a few yards without sever angina!, Next few months arguing with the doctors that something bad had happened at this point I had a stent in a stent in the LAD finaly at the end of the year they agreed that the blood flow around the heart was impaired so another procedure was scheduled early 2017. During this procedure they discovered that the previous doctor had effectively applied the balloon with so much force that it had extruded plaque down into a branch artery fitted a stent that was the wrong diameter and was either over length or incorrectly placed which further compromised the flow into the branch,
They did what they could fitted another stent so basically I now sport a stent within a stent within a stent and sent me on my way. This alleviated the angina to some degree but depending on the day if I don't take the Nitro I can't walk far.
The cardio people have said there is nothing further that can be done my feeling is that is probably not quite correct but they say it is not possible to bypass it . In todays health service one is never sure if that is a medical or financial decision so there we are from my perspective an incompetent operator has reduced the quality of my life and probably shortened it.
One of the lessons I take from this is that the reduction of many procedure to production line environment does little for continuity of treatment and nothing for being able to assign responsibility.
The only thing I have read are medical studies. I’m lucky to not have heart disease . . . As yet! We have a huge family history though. I was pulled up by my GP as my cholesterol level had increased and was immediately prescribed statins. I have asked for medical proof of the benefits of these for a female of nearly 60, and she had to confess there wasn’t any concrete proof of benefits. There is however concrete proof of calcification of the heart through statins. At present I have a calcification score of zero. I have made life changes and my cholesterol is now normal. More importantly my triglycerides,Lpa and inflammation markers are all low. Each to their own though 🙂
Since you have said elswhere you now have a normal cholesterol level, and you have a CAC score of zero, you don't need statins. I also have a CAC score of zero, normal cholesterol, and have never been prescribed a statin.
Unfortunately many people are not in this position - they have heart disease and are at high risk of heart attacks. Spreading misinformation about statins has unfortunately meant that many people who would be helped by statins don't take them and have avoidable heart attacks. Whatever people choose to do personally, they should think very carefully about the ethics of trying to persuade others to ignore their doctors, particularly on a BHF site.
Try reading the guidelines.
I feel people should do their own research too, not just blindly take whatever is thrown at them. My GP still wants me to take statins btw but I won’t risk them. Can you send a link please to show people who haven’t taken statins have had more avoidable heart attacks as I’ve not read that one? I don’t think I’m trying to persuade anyone not to take them, just do their own research and make their own informed decision. It would be easier not to post about statins, but it’s my ethics that’s makes me do so. Look at thalidomide, we were all told that was safe too.
By all means:
bhf.org.uk/what-we-do/news-...
The comparison with thalidomide is ridiculous. Thalidomide was launched In 1957, when there was little testing of medicines for foetal abnormalities. It was taken off the market 4 years later. The process of medical testing has grown ever more rigorous, and statins have undergone huge amounts of testing for 30 years. There are thousands of studies - which is why statin deniers cherry-pick a few and ignore the weight of the evidence, while the expert committees that formulate the guidelines spend months looking at all the evidence.
Of course , you have said you don't read the results of any trials funded by the pharmaceutical companies - as part of the licensing process companies are obliged to fund phase 1, 2 and 3 trials of their products for safety and efficacy. These trials in patients are organised by academic medicine consultants in major hospitals. The results of the trials are then examined by further experts in academic medicine when composing the guidelines.
My husband has taken part in a large phase 3 trial ( not related to statins) through his cardiologists at an outstanding cardiac hospital, funded by the company but undertaken by the hospital cardiologists. Previous smaller trials had been hopeful, but the larger trial showed that the intervention did not work. The whole process was entirely rigorous.
Saying you will ignore the trials because the companies funded them means you are choosing to ignore the evidence. Again I suggest reading the guidelines.
Since you have joined the BHF site in order to pursue an anti statin agenda you should at least make it clear in your posts that you are contradicting BHF advice.
We will have to agree to disagree I’m afraid. Others on this site have the same view as I do too so we are lucky we have freedom of speech in our country. I don’t know about you but I’m always willing to learn 🙂
Glad to hear you are ready to learn - I hope you read the BHF link and will read the guidelines!
Yes, we all need to read more and learn more 🙂
A very graceful exit I thought
Thank you kindly, sometimes one can tell it’s not worth pursuing ☺️
It's not that you ignore trials, it's you need to pay close attention to how they report the results. Your link above stated a relative risk reduction of 40%, to be transparent guidelines for statin benefit should be reported in absolute terms. Statin deniers, as you say, have read and listened to researchers who do the work of statistically analysing conclusions of the same studies you trust but report the findings statistically different. Statisticians are employed for a reason, they are not lying, but they know how to represent a product in the best light for their employer.
The analysis was made by academics from Imperial College, University of London and the University of Leicester.
imperial.ac.uk/news/189407/...
Funding but nothing else came from Amgen - all statins are out of patent and are generics now, they don't make money for the pharmaceutical companies.
The study included the absolute reduction:
'According to the team, in patients with established heart disease approximately 72 cardiovascular events were observed per 1000 patients per year. But with optimal treatment – high dose medication and high adherence – this would be expected to be reduced to 48 per 1000 patients per year, a reduction of 12,000 cases based on the estimated 500,000 heart disease patients in the UK.'
This shows how important the subject is for public health. Knowing that there is a 40% reduction in the risk of another heart attack for those who have higher dose statins and are adherent is also very important for many people on this site who wish to reduce their risk of a second heart attack as much as possible.
It also makes clear that statins work in preventing heart attacks, though that only needs repeating to statin deniers.
Excellent news, hopefully I will continue to be one of the 12000 for a few more years yet 👍
notice how they report the absolute reduction, is it straight forward like how they reported the relative reduction (40%), no it is not, you have to do the maths yourself. I am left to conclude, with my limited maths skills, that the absolute reduction is 2.4%? I don't know if I got that right , perhaps somebody better at statistics than me, can help me out.
• in reply toAdaboo
You may think you are not dissuading people from taking statins but your words tell a different story.
Adaboo• in reply to
I think you are indicating that the members on here don’t have the power to make their own decisions with your comment, which I find insulting to them. I know you were part of one of the big statin studies paid for by the company that makes them. You seem to have taken anything said against statins as personal now. I assure you it isn’t though. 🙂
• in reply toAdaboo
It is your view that I have said anything against the people of this forum. I most certainly haven’t. They have the power to make their own decisions and I would not take that from them. I am a great advocate of people managing their conditions in partnership with their healthcare providers. As a number of people have liked my comments they are not seeing in them what you see. I wonder why that is? I was a volunteer in the ASCOT trial and the outcome for me was well controlled BP and well controlled cholesterol. A later study I took part in, some years after that, showed that I had no heart disease and no thickening of any arteries (cardiac MRIs and ultrasound). I do not take your comments about statins personally but why should you with your negativity steel the show??
Adaboo• in reply to
“but why should you with your negativity steel the show??”
How on Earth have you come to that conclusion 🤔
just because someone ( and it’s not just me) has a different point of view to yours you feel they are stealing the show? How very sad such a serious and interesting debate comes down to that in your eyes. As for talking about how many “ likes” your comments get. . Well what about the likes mine got? ( plus the other negative statin comments) 🤔 We are allowed to debate as adults, I’m not into counting “ likes” and being angry because someone else is “ stealing the show” I’m after knowledge.
• in reply toAdaboo
Knowledge is the last thing you are after. You are presented with evidence and you choose to ignore it. When you are called out on an outrageous statement you merely mock the refutation. You try to be clever and it does not work. My comments were not about any of the other statin naysayers - just you.
"ethics of trying to persuade others to ignore their doctors, particularly on a BHF site"
"Ethics"... that is a big word - does anyone know wah it means any more?
• in reply toFortepiano
People are allowed to state their results with or without drugs. It's not persuading it's their information that may help (or not) other folks.
Fortepiano• in reply to
Of course people can state their personal results. It's the deliberate spreading of fake news and misinformation about statins which is a real problem and costs lives. Unfortunately a few people have joined the BHF forum purely to pursue their anti-statin agenda and indeed try to persuade people to ignore their doctor's advice.
David Noakes made millions out of selling unlicensed blood products as a fake cancer cure. He pleaded guilty to all charges including money laundering and was sent to prison.
This is precisely what the MRHA protects us from.
I agree it's a matter of whom one chooses to trust, but people sometimes make very odd choices!
Indeed that is the opinion promulgated by the Main stream media who are notorious for their poor / lack of research. Here is a different point of view.
ukcolumn.org/article/gcmaf-....
• in reply tocachaciero
Page no longer exists.
cachaciero• in reply to
Ah! Link to a broken link try this:-
• in reply tocachaciero
A report about a criminal.
cachaciero• in reply to
Now why does your response not surprise me, it is the same as the MSM and you may be right but it does seem to me from that article that there is room for doubt, the prosecuting judge seemed to think so.
• in reply tocachaciero
The judge does not prosecute. He judges! The guy pleaded guilty!!!
cachaciero• in reply to
Judging by the speed of response you didn't spend any time reading the article, yes he pleaded guilty but was he really guilty? if the law is framed the way that article says it is he had little choice. You obliviously have no doubts I have plenty.
• in reply tocachaciero
You have doubts but the man concerned did not. If he had committed no crime he would have pleaded not guilty.
cachaciero• in reply to
People have been known to plead guilty to a crime in order to get a reduced sentence where they don't believe or know that they will not get a fair trial if taken further, the article, if you had bothered to read it shows why he took that course.
I quote from the article.
"The situation is no different in the UK. It seems the MHRA is hopelessly corrupt. 10 public bodies have raised significant concerns about MHRA practices, even the BBC criticised them. A 2005 Parliamentary select committee identified numerous MHRA failings and recommended a fundamental review. In 2011 the Lancet revealed that the MHRA totally failed in its duty to regulate the marketing of medical devices. This led the Chairman of the investigating committee Andrew Miller to announce that a trail of deception had been exposed, stating:
“As has been exposed, the notified bodies (MHRA) have become too close to manufacturers, they are too cosy. The problem is the process is not robust.”"
So there you have it David Noakes a little man in the game standing in the dock facing charges by an Organisation which is extremely economical with the truth with big money behind it the MHRA was never going to be honest in its evidence bearing in mind the MHRA wanted him put away for fifteen years, best to plead guilty and take a reduced sentence.
But I am sure you will have an answer for that as well, for the rest of the people here reading this I suggest that you go and read the article then make your own minds up do your own research as regards allegations against the MHRA there is a lot out there I'm done for now.
Michael, the answers have proved your point!
One should fully understand the difference between relative benefit and absolute benefit, before making their decision to take or not take medication.
That info. is exactly why I chose to pass on the statin, and became committed to address my metabolic issues with lifestyle changes. I can't ignore the fact that statins effect a lot more than cholesterol levels.
I looked up this website and find that vortala.com is a website & services company marketed to the medical community providing a range of services incl website design, seo, copywriting, social media and so on
It is not a peer reviewed publication and I am left wondering why this article has been published in this way and not in the usual peer reviewed way.
Please can you provide the scientific original source of this paper.
Thank you.
Michael are you aware of any cases of statin induced heart failure as I believe the heart muscle can be damaged in the same way that other muscles can be damaged in some people by statins
Thanks for these links, some I’ve not seen before. Scary reading.
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
ALT and statins
Hello!Does anybody has had their ALT levels(liver) increased ?Im wondering if the statins may...
Stopping Statins
hi guys after a year last year, of frightening chest pains and ? Heart attacks, going through...
Alternatives to Statins
Ezetimibe is a tablet that lowers cholesterol. It may be prescribed if statins cannot be taken, or...
Statins
Hi All (newbie)
I'm now getting my head around that I've had to have two stents due to a 98%...
Statins
The British Heart Foundation (who sponsor this forum) run a series of internet based Zoom...
CAD and OMT/STATINS
Inclisiran, an alternative to statins.
Statins 
statins
