Statins cause heart failure - British Heart Fou...

British Heart Foundation

27,559 members18,073 posts

Statins cause heart failure

fergusthegreat profile image
fergusthegreat

I just read a link on one of the posts about statins quoting a report from 2015 and published in the Clinical review of Pharmacology .

It states that statins can cause heart failure by damaging the heart muscle.

Does anyone know if this is true as it's very concerning if it is.

48 Replies

All meds carry risks, my husband has been on statins for years they didn't cause his HF, his HA did that.

Hidden profile image
Hidden in reply to Lezzers

Exactly Lezzers. I've been on Simvastatin 40mg for years. Regularly checked by the Doctor mind so that's ok with me.

Fallacies In Modern Medicine: Statins and the Cholesterol-Heart Hypothesis

jpands.org/vol20no2/miller.pdf

The Ugly Side of Statins

file.scirp.org/pdf/OJEMD_20...

Statins Stimulate Atherosclerosis and Heart Failure

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10....

cdn.vortala.com/childsites/...

pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a0...

jeffreydachmd.com/wp-conten...

The Telegraph

telegraph.co.uk/science/201...

The trouble is that there is so much conflicting 'evidence ' , that it's hard to know who to believe . I had very high cholestral 10 , my GP refused to put me on Statins . I' ve ended up having a heart attack a few weeks ago.. Was that partly because lack of Statins? Or not?

A scientist told me once , years back before this debate started that it was not even proven that cholestrol caused heart attacks . He said that the public were told that it did to sell the concept of Statins to them . So that drug companies could make even more billions.

What I would like to know is why NHS doctors and nurses working in hospitals refused to take the flu jab. The government tried to force them but they didn't budge.

Your doctor should have, could have, advised you to eliminate (or significantly reduce) your intake of all sugars, carbs, starches, grains, seed/veg oils, fruit juices, soft drinks, crappy snacks and ultra-processed foods from your diet... Doing so, will lead to healthier blood sugars/insulin and less inflammed arteries.

In all the decades of trotting back and forth to GP's and hospital clinicians, not one of those clinicians mentioned anything other than the "cholesterol" in the lab test. But when your cholesterol blood test is carried out, other lipids are stated in that same cholesterol profile. But none of those clinicians ever looked at, or commented on, those other lipids that were in the cholesterol/lipid panel. I had to conclude that they didn't know or didn't care.

I eventually conducted my own research and realised/felt that the Triglycerides are of more importance than the "cholesterol". Last year I saw a clinician who was the first ever clinician (in decades) to say that despite my high total cholesterol (of over 10), that my Triglycerides was actually at the lower end of the ref. range, and my HDL was at the upper end.

If you positively change your diet, your Triglycerides should reflect that change and gradually head towards the bottom end of the reference range.

Eat real foods and real fats. And watch the documentary The Magic Pill (released in 2017 and available on Netflix), and the new documentary FAT (to be released at the end of July 2019 and available on iTunes and Vimeo etc).

My doctor did nothing . But I've always had a healthy diet before it was in the mainstream to do so. I also used to exercise . And I don't smoke or drink ! I know people who smoke a lot , drink a lot , eat junk food and have no health issues whatsoever. Lol! Lucky them!

I have a very strong family history of heart disease from both parents. ( Who also had healthy lifestyles!) . So in my case Genetics play a huge role.

I know nothing about Triglycerides at all . So thank you for all that information , I will definitely look into it.

I'll watch 'The magic Pill ' and will look out for the docu 'Fat' . Thanks again for that .

IMO There's no harm in thinking 'outside of the box ', in fact it's beneficial . I don't know why some people get defensive and angry when people voice opinions that are outside the mainstream of everything that we've been told. Surely we learn by exchanging ideas and opinions!

According to what I recall, to be sure, you could do an ApoE blood test to see if you are ApoE positive and exactly which sub-division of ApoE you are. Depending on the result of that blood test and, more specifically, the sub-division that you might fall into, you might then need want to amend your diet further.

Apologies for my ignorance but what is an ApoE blood test? I haven't a clue ! I really would like to start eating exactly right ie what's suited to me !

May be best to watch the two films that I previously mentioned, and then research whatever sparks your interest. 🖖🏻

Okay thanks ! Great advice . Will do so!

You could also ask your doctor to do an insulin sensitivity test and a glucose tolerance test, don't settle for just an hbA1C test. The results of these tests are very useful in predicting your risk of developing not only heart disease but many other metabolic problems. Spend a little time researching the effects of insulin resistance. IMO insulin resistance is like high blood pressure, they are silent killers if left untreated for decades.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Jack2019

The problem is Jack, that they don't run the 5 hr (?) test as recommended by Dr Joseph Kraft who ran and analysed lab tests of, I think, over 15,000 people and had extensive knowledge and grasp of this field.

Jack2019 profile image
Jack2019 in reply to Londinium

that certainly is a problem with our overburdened health care system.

Jack2019 profile image
Jack2019 in reply to Jack2019

spend the time and money know or spend a lot more time and money once the patient hits their fifties.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Jack2019

Dr Kraft interview:

youtu.be/w0nV-_ddXoc

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Jack2019

They're unlikely to even know about Kraft's recommended tests. They erroneously think that the standard tests are correct in diagnosing diabetes and prediabetes. Not one clinician has ever mentioned Insulin Resistance or Hyperinsulinemia - no GP, Cardiologist, or Endocrinologists. I suspect they haven't a clue &/or are uninterested. If they gave good dietary advice, ran the correct lab tests, and interpreted the lab results correctly, there wouldn't be such an avalanche of chronic and crippling illness.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Jack2019

Dr Kraft's intro to the subject:

youtu.be/UgnZ2_r9bMA

Jack2019 Thanks ! I've had a glucose fasting test . It's where you don't eat and only drink water for 8-12 hours . Is it the same as the glucose tolerance test?

I was diagnosed with diabetes 2 about 5-6 years ago. Nothing to do with my diet or weight. Again it's to do with Genetics on my father's side . His side of the family have a lot of illnesses and I seem to have inherited quite a few !

I will ask my doctor for an insulin sensitivity test but I don't know if she'll agree do it . And I'll do the research on it on the Net .

Thanks again for the invaluable info!

Unless you measure your insulin directly, as Dr. Kraft did, you won't know if your insulin levels are high.

All the measures of blood glucose are measuring the response of blood glucose to the insulin that's attempting to keep it at bay. You can have insulin-resistance for decades and be unaware as a result. Very few people go on to develop prediabetes or diabetes, although the incidence has gone up six-fold since the 1970s, and doubled since the 1990s.

Eating to avoid diabetes, by keeping to less than 60 GL per day, not cutting fat from meat nor consuming low-fat dairy, nor eating baked beans all of which stimulate excess insulin, is healthy eating

Goggle Jason fung, he deals extensively with type 2. No insulin testing is not the same a fasting glucose test. Good luck, type 2 can be managed with lifestyle changes, in most people.

I suspect you were diabetic for years before getting the diabetes diagnosis. As for having nothing to do with your diet - sugars and carbs (inc. the so-called "healthy" carbs) are all instrumental in leading to diagnosed or undiagnosed diabetes.

It is said that cardiovascular disease is caused by diabetes - regardless of whether the diabetes is diagnosed or not. Dr Kraft tested about 15,000 people, so he probably knew what he was talking about.

And don't get me started on "flu jabs" and other "jabs". 🙁 It's a racket.

Fortepiano profile image
Fortepiano in reply to Londinium

Yes, anti statin conspiracy theorists are often anti vaxxers.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Fortepiano

Oh here we go.

You seem to be trolling me. 🙁

Fortepiano profile image
Fortepiano in reply to Londinium

No, just not surprised - it's a common conspiracy theory combination. I think the troll is the person who has joined the BHF site purely to pursue an anti statin pro cholesterol agenda whch is directly opposed to the BHF advice.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Fortepiano

You clearly don't believe in freedom of thought and expression.

Furthermore, maybe you should speak to the Immunologist who recently confirmed in an appt that different people can, and do, suffer adverse reactions from vaccines, and, therefore, each person must decide for themselves whether/not to have a jab/vaccine.

Maybe you'd like to also label him as an anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist and fake?

These silly phrases are boringly predictable and small-minded.

landofhope profile image
landofhope in reply to Londinium

some people will never learn and believe Doctor and Pharma know best and of course never lie,

there seems to be pattern

Statins for cholesterol followed by developing Diabetes then the flue jab then become demented and finally a care home,

USA vaccine court paid out $2.8 billion in 2013 and in 2019 paid out $4.7 billion

according to dorrellhines world press.co

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to landofhope

If you watch the video testimony of Stanley Plotkin, of Jan 2018, you'll find him chilling (and evasive). It was uploaded to youtube.

Your reference to Drs and Nurses within the NHS refusing the Flu Jab makes it sound that they know more than the rest of us, fact is they don't.

Doctors and Nurses sometimes make poor decisions just like the rest of us.

This was a fake news link posted 3 times now by Londinium. Harumi Okuyama is a pharmaceutical scientist who is one of the 127 odd members of THINCS , the anti cholesterol anti statin group founded by Ravnskov, a retired nephrologist. THINCS is the source of virtually all the cholesterol hypothesis is wrong / statins are the devil's seed and cause cancer etc fake news that appears on the internet. As needs to be repeated endlessly, no reputable scientific bodies accept this stuff. But of course this is because the AHA ESC, BHF all academic cardiologists etc are all corrupt and this little group knows the TRUTH! Okuyama has written a lot in this vein accompanied by the usual THINCS suspects, Ravnskov, Kendrick et al. The European Atherosclerosis Society recently issued a position statement on cholesterol, but Okuyama thinks they're all wrong too.The Clinical Review of Expert Pharmacology despite its name is a very minor low-grade journal. This is an just a 4 year old opinion piece devoid of evidence. It has had absolutely no credence in the scientific community.

The conspiracy theorists on here swallow the THINCS line that everyone but themselves has got it wrong, the AHA and every scientific body are corrupt etc etc.

Or instead you can recognise that in science consensus rules, and the vast number of scientists, academic cardiologists etc who roll their eyes when THINCS is mentioned are correct.

Whenever a link is posted here I would look very carefully to see if it comes from a reputable source and who the author is ( and indeed who posted it as a few posters spend all their time disseminating this sort of stuff! ). As Michael's original post about fake news showed, this misinformation is dangerous.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Fortepiano

So the heart surgeon Dr Miller is a fake heart surgeon?

jpands.org/vol20no2/miller.pdf

And the vascular surgeon Dr Sultan is a fake vascular surgeon?

file.scirp.org/pdf/OJEMD_20...

m.scirp.org/papers/34065

And all the reference papers (that were enc. in their papers) were fake too?

And this is fake?

tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10....

Everyone's fake, but you're not fake?

Fortepiano profile image
Fortepiano in reply to Londinium

Miller and Sherif may be perfectly good surgeons but they hold maverick views on cholesterol and statins that are not accepted by the mainstream medicine - their views are fake news indeed. Miller is a full-blown THINCS member, Sherif is against prescribing statins to healthy people as a preventative but even he accepts their role in people with heart disease ( i.e. most of these foum members).

Your last link which you are posting for the 4th time is the one by another THINCS member, Okuyama, which I have already dealt with.

References mean absolutely nothing when the citing paper is poor.

I am sure you have an endless number of internet links in store for us, but the fact remains, these are the views of a few maverick individuals, which have not been accepted by mainstream medicine - there are thousands of papers on statins, and the expert committees who form cardiovascular guidelines look at the totality of the evidence and update their guidelines accordingly. They remain completely unconvinced by this sort of stuff.

Posing 10 fake news links in a thread - is this a record?

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Fortepiano

Your reply is completely unconvincing and laughable for its extreme bias.

"maverick" = "fake" ?

But your statement that "mainstream medicine is fake news indeed" may be correct.

Galileo was a maverick. And he went against mainstream fake news. Just saying. 🤔

Fortepiano profile image
Fortepiano in reply to Londinium

Of course I'm never going to convince a conspiracy theorist who believes mainstream medicine is fake. Perhaps you should note your belief in your posts, so people are aware of that bias. I can happily say I am biased in favour of mainstream medicine which has saved my life and that of my husband a few times, and of course biased in favour of that backbone of mainstream medicine and indeed all science, the scientific consensus.


It didn't take long for Galileo's views to become the scientific consensus. You are presumably referring to the catholic church, who do not now claim medical expertise!

I'm off now, so do feel free to post another lot of links.

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to Fortepiano

You sound like a conspiracy theorist.

You think that if you chuck phrases around like confetti, such as "fake" and "conspiracy theorist" and "full-blown" and "mavericks" (which, by the way, is a compliment), it'll make you seem correct.

Maybe you're pushing the conspiracy theories.

landofhope profile image
landofhope in reply to Londinium

some people trust the Pharmaceutical company's without giving it any thought, and if they are ok with that, its fine, but to say anything that points out a different view is a conspiracy theory or cry of fake news, i would suggest that they just take a look at ,BIG PHARMAS FINES

and

Wikipedia list of largest pharmaceutical settlements,

we need the pharmaceutical company's to be above board and honest about their products, but in some cases they are not

Londinium profile image
Londinium in reply to landofhope

Yes, the tobacco industry, the food industry, the big pharma industry, the building industry (remember Grenfell?), the war industry (remember WMD?)... etc, etc, etc... are ALL strewn with examples of distorted and corrupted 'facts'. Oh, and I forgot the Hillsborough families who waited more than quarter-of-a-century for a morsel of truth, because all the 'facts' had been distorted by the gov. agencies and the media. There are so many other examples out there....

So you'd think that, by now, people would, just sometimes, wake up and smell the coffee, rather than always remain so blinkered and so defensive.

link.springer.com/article/1...

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my question and having just read an article in the European cardiology review stating the mortality benefits of statins for patients with diastolic heart failure I think I shall continue with mine.

However I might start taking a Coq-10 supplement as well.

Hi Fergus

Good reply and for the record I will continue to take mine

Lezzers profile image
Lezzers in reply to Prada47

And I shall make sure my husband continues to take his......he always does as he's told!!!

Jack2019 profile image
Jack2019 in reply to Fortepiano

go back a few generations and learn what the whole scientific community was recommending to help patients. Outliers of the time, researchers , Doctors and Ancel Keys (not a doctor) managed to change conventional medicine with their research. The very nature of advancement in science depends on outliers and researchers to assume we got it wrong and push forward with new findings. And research has definitely advanced since the cholesterol theory was established.

It is well accepted by Medical research that stations can cause heart problems in some people, not conspiracy theory! Even the leaflet in the packet carries a warning! There has been a recommendation for a few years, that users should take coq10 to protect against it. NICE approved I believe? I cannot tolerate statins, though many can. I'm now part of a 5 yr study looking at this using stroke and heart attack survivors.

If it’s free and a couple of people with letters before there name recommend it, then I’m going to take it😊

Milkfairy profile image
MilkfairyHeart Star

I am going to keep taking my statins too.

Why because it reduces inflammation and stabilise even tiny areas of plaque that could be dislodged when my microvessels and coronary and cerebral arteries go into spasm.

I don't fancy a heart attack or stroke.

I dodged a heart attack 7 years ago.

My long term destiny could well be Heart failure with preserved ejection fraction.

The jury is out on Q10 and to be honest I couldn't bear to take yet another tablet!

always read the leaflet inside the med box.

In a database of over 1,600,000 patients on statin therapy and followed for 2 years incident heart failure was 0.3%.

So yes there seems to be a very small risk but for 99.7% of people I think the benefits definitely outway the risks especially if you have pre existing heart disease.

Study was published in the European journal of Cardiology.

MichaelJH profile image
MichaelJHHeart Star

The negativity surrounding muscle pains and statins is so bad now that in a trial reported in the Lancet people on placebo reported muscle pains as much as those on a statin. Muscle pain is associated with statins but often disappears with a change in statin (I had to change from Simvastatin to Atorvastatin). In a few cases a rare muscle condition develops called Rhabdomyolysis! This like a change in liver function should be picked up by the patient reporting serious pains and blood tests, including liver function, routinely carried out by your GP. For the heart muscles to be affected is even rarer and should really be picked up before heart failure develops.

If someone thinks this risk of around 1 in a million is not worth taking they would obviously never have stents or a bypass as the odds of death are far higher! In evaluating risk you have to be cool, calm and collected even if it hard!

greetings fergusthegreat i see you posted TWO years ago and yet an invitation to speak to you is on this feed with only one post from boris789 - i am new here - this is bit confusing is anybody still here boris789 seems to be talking to himself

You may also like...