Have been avoiding taking Statins since Doctor said I should since August 2014.
Yesterday I said I am still reading negative stuff and she said this site only gives a bad view.....what about the thousands who take it without any side effects. She said that is what happens......you only hear the negatives not the positives.
It's a problem because I don't want to take them but worried I might be causing myself harm if I dont
I do agree to a certain extent but I don't think many people are given all the facts to make an informed decision abut whether they want to take a life long medication which may or may not be of benefit to them. If no side effects and they're happy to take them then OK.
Trouble is it's difficult to get unbiased advice.
On that note I heard the intrepid Dr Michael Mosley on Radio 4 last weekend saying he still hasn't made up his mind about statins , he takes them for a few months then stops (NICE would not approve!) adding "this is was most doctors do".....except they tell us not to.
Typo above, "this is what most doctors do".
The Doc wasnt interested in anymore explaining as I have resisted them for a year. I have spoken to other Doctors at the Practice. .....They all think the same. They all cannot understand why I haven't taken them
Surely the dogmatic approach that if you start taking statins you MUST take them for ever just puts people off taking them? Various GPs at my practice have said 'you should think before starting a lifelong medication' but wouldn't it be better to say that if you try them and find they have really adverse effects you can stop?
The same with the cholesterol lowering targets for FH. A low dose statin will still have an effect in terms of heart disease prevention and some may find they're ok with a lower dose - but saying you MUST lower cholesterol by half just puts people off taking them altogether.
My issue with statins is not only the possible adverse effects (some such as the diabetes risk aren't reversible and that's my major worry about taking them) but also that I have not yet had ANYONE in the NHS prepared to sit down and discuss the risks and benefits with me, and also I just don't think I'm at particularly high risk from my family history. Plus I'm not keen on the idea of preventive medication, but if I had a really alarming family history such as non smoking fit people in their 40's having heart attacks I may well try them.
However, as I keep pointing out to my doctors, no non smoking member of my family has had heart disease or a stroke at all so far, and I'm a life long non smoker.
I am also not keen on PREVENTATIVE medicine. It is the drug companies' heavenly dream. It means selling drugs to billions of healthy people, a massive market. Much more lucrative than targeting just the sick. It's like selling dishwasher tablets to people with no dishwasher! Preventative medicine is surely about eating well. But doctors certainly don't know anything about that since they've been giving out wrong information about saturated fats and the like for the last 60 years. Why would anyone believe a thing they say? I don't anyway. And telling people for years that red wine is good for them simply made people feel virtuous about intoxicating themselves. Why didn'they just say eat ? It's all madness. Those with vested interests are sniggering all the way to the bank.
Apologies, "eat grapes", is what it should read.
If you don't believe a word they say then why do you go and see them........
I rarely do.
I went to my doctor because I had a skin infection which needed antibiotics, and I went because the pharmacist told me to.
I ended up with all this nonsense about cholesterol without ever asking for a cholesterol test and have had to do my own research.
Idontbelieveit: Reminds me of an article by a chap who said that (like you) he went to his GP for something or other as a fit 68 year old and came out feeling that he had a life threatening condition and told he must take statins. He did - and turned into a sick old man who could hardly get his breath! He and his wife (who is incidentally a doctor) changed their tune about statins pretty damn quick! He stopped them when he realised and thankfully improved a lot. I've read so many stories like that and yet, if people read around the subject, they would see that they should not be fearful of high cholesterol. In Japan, every bit of research shows that people there with high cholesterol live the longest. I think it is pretty well known universally now that older people worldwide with high cholesterol live longer. We are talking about all cause mortality here but, what the heck, you're either alive or dead whatever the cause of death.
the point is I have searched and searched for the evidence that high cholesterol is associated with heart disease and it doesn't exist. It really doesn't.
As far as I know the only association that was ever observed came from the Framingham heart study and was only in men under 50.
The HUNT 2 study shows no association at all in women, apart from an inverse one.
Also, internationally, the Australians have one of the highest average cholesterol levels and lowest rate of heart disease.
What is the correct information on saturated fat?
Do you use coconut oil, real butter, full fat milk and cheese?
I don't know the exact answer. I only know, from what I've read over many years, that people and organisations with vested interests skew the information they put out. However, I feel pretty sure that saturated fat is not just harmless but pretty beneficial in itself. I myself am vegetarian and rarely have dairy milk or cheese, so I would like to say that saturated fat is bad in the interests of vegetarianism. However, I don't believe it is from the saturated fat point of view. I think animal products are bad in other ways, eg they contain crazy amounts of hormones, antibiotics etc, but the evidence does not point to the saturated fat per se. After all, years ago in my parents' childhood, people used to eat loads of lard - they ate and loved dripping on toast. Yet heart disease, obesity, diabetes, etc, all seemed to increase when all the warnings about saturated fats was drilled into the population.
Coconut oil? I'm not sure but I feel it's possibly incredibly good for you. In places where they eat a lot of it, heart disease seems to be much rarer. Yes, I'm happy to eat coconut oil myself and I certainly drink litres and litres of coconut water. Like everyone else, I haven't discovered the secret of perfect health, but one thing I am certain of is that much of the information fed to us by scientists and medics is extremely harmful - and some of them know it to be so. It is iniquitous. So we need to be alert and sift through the available information, then try to glean from it what we need. Not scientific? Maybe not - but much of the so-called evidence-based info we are given is extremely unscientific as well. It is marketing information disguised as science. For example, a drug is marketed and used for years, then we are told that thousands of people died from it (Vioxx is just one example). But hey, don't worry they say, because we've a new one now that is definitely safe. But just a minute, they said that last time. Why would the new product be any different? And where are all the cures, one might ask. Enough money's been spent on them, yet we're told every day on TV that they need more money for research. What's happened to all the billions they've already had?
Of course you should self educate. But not believing a word a doctor says is a bit harsh. You mean you don't believe a word your doctor says. Change the doctor.
Sorry, a misunderstandng. In my first post, I actually said, "Why would anyone believe a thing they say?" It was a question - a rhetorical one, I accept. However, can you give a logical reason why they should be believed when, as a body, they spout misleading information all the time, often in the interests of bonuses for meeting targets.
I think the difference between you and me is that I don't allow them to spout.
I have 8 minutes. I tell them what's wrong or ask for advice and they give it to me based on my questions and their expertise. there is no time for crap spouting. Seriously if you feel you don't have a good deal from GPs then change them. They are not all bad and also not bad as a body.
I never really saw a doctor for 59 years but when I had my heart attack and we also discovered I had diabetes we have had a great relationship and based on trust and understanding. They have helped me forward to a much much healthier life. I can imagine another set of doctors I could have a different outcome but it works for me. Do I take all they say for granted no of course not that's why we have google (now theres something full of crap) so we can sift through the info we find.
So with them my own intelligence and the internet I form my conclusions. Open eyes and ears is what is needed. I don't close my mind to all theories and clap crap and trends (just nothing from the Daily Mail please). Absorb it all and filter it.
Exactly what I do. But we have come to slightly different conclusions. However, I accept that you can only speak as you find and I am glad that you have had such good service and I wish you well.
and the other difference between you and me is that I'm not actually ill!
You mean you don't believe a word your doctor says. Change the doctor."
There is only one GPs practice I can register with as it happens - all the practices in my area are so over subscribed they have strict geographical restrictions, so I'm stuck with the one nearest to my house.
But even if I did find a different doctor GPs are restricted in what they can say. I suspect a few of the ones at my surgery don't really agree with the levels of statin prescription and none have ever pushed me to take statins.
My issues are with the lipid consultants and the NICE guidelines that meant my GP was obliged to send me to the lipid clinic.
One trial showed a result of 80% of people finding they had side effects after starting statins. What was not reported by the press was that in the same double-blind trial, 78% of people on the placebo also had the same side effects.
Reporting the placebo effect would have spilt a good story in the press, but not reporting it actually results in people who would benefit from the drug, not taking it and risking heart attacks, angina, strokes.
The benefits of statins do outweigh the negative effects, but it's a bit like childhood inoculation in that people fear the risk of a causing a problem by doing something more than the higher risk of problems by not doing something.
My children, as did myself, had all their jabs. They've also had cholesterol tests and will soon have genetic cascade tests for my dodgy FH gene.
do you have a link to this study? I've never heard of a trial that showed 80% of people having side effects.
Where is the evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks? In fact, where is the evidence that they are beneficial at all? It's just what you've been told by people who you accept are well educated.
My own view about statin side effects is quite simple - I've been told my people I trust (eg my brother) about the terrible side effects statins had on him. There are a lot of medications widely prescribed, eg blood pressure drugs which my brother takes quite happily, ,and we don't have people reporting the adverse side effects you get with statins.
There is quite simply a very wide gap between the view of medics who advocate statin usage and what's coming from the general public. It's true that statins are very widely prescribed, but that can't be solely the reason that they have such a bad reputation. It's also true of course that some people can take them without any adverse effects, but when a member of your own family says they left him in agony, I'm inclined to listen. And the number of people saying this means I think it's a lot more widespread than the official version of events.
This wouldn't be such an issue if statins were only being used for very high risk patients. But if your risk of a heart attack is 10% over ten years and statins lower that risk to 6%, then that means that 96% of people who take a statin for 10 years will derive no benefit whatsoever.
If medics (who usually aren't taking statins themselves) continue to pooh pooh the concerns of patients then all that happens is a climate of distrust is created. The chief medical officer herself has acknowledged this and ordered a review of medicines because of concerns about overprescription of drugs. This should be due to report soon and it will be interesting to see what comes out of it.
Oh and re the claims that statins have hardly any more side effects than placebo.
Ben Goldacre was one of the researchers on this study and he wrote a piece on his blog about it because it was misrepresented in the press. He explains why the study is flawed.
badscience.net/2014/03/stat...
"And that brings me to the central flaw in our study. As we say in the text, the side effects information we were able to work with, from trial publications, is likely to be incomplete: the trial reports varied in what side effects they reported, they often failed to describe their methods for spotting and reporting side effects very well, and companies may not be highly motivated to put a lot of side effects data into their academic papers (to say the least)."
I thought everyone knew that the drug companies only report what is to their advantage. Virtually all mainstream medical research is sponsored by drug companies. Researchers are not going to find things that put them out of a job. I realised many many years ago, working in that field, that it was all just jobs for the boys
Another concern (and one Ben Goldacre has written extensively about) is that drug companies simply don't release the results of unfavourable trials.
Here's what he says about the evidence base for statins.
badscience.net/2014/06/what...
"When we offer statins, or any preventive treatment, we are practicing a new kind of medicine, very different to the doctor treating a head injury in A&E. We are less like doctors, and more like a life insurance sales team: offering occasional benefits, many years from now, in exchange for small ongoing costs. Patients differ in what they want to pay now, in side effects or inconvenience, and how much they care about abstract future benefits. Crucially, the benefits and disadvantages are so closely balanced that these individual differences in preference really matter.
Because of that, this new kind of medicine needs perfect information. We need clean, clear data showing the risks and benefits of preventive treatments, on real world outcomes, beyond any reasonable doubt, at every level of risk, and for as many subgroups as possible. We need shared decision making products that are universally available, carefully validated, and seamlessly integrated into routine clinical care, to help all patients make their own truly informed decisions. Lastly, we need to recognise that different patients have different priorities: different to each other and, sometimes, very different to our own."
I am not a Ben Goldacre fan but what he says is right. We do need correct information but I don't think anybody really expects there to be any change in the way things are done now. People are inherently greedy and money speaks all languages. But remember, there are many people who think they ARE being kept well informed and are happy to keep taking the tablets. What a pity!
Actually there is a bit of a ground up revolution going on. GPs are refusing to recommend statins at the new lower levels, and a lot of patients are refusing them - 2/3 of those recommended statins now won't take them.
Keep taking the pills. I've been on statins for around 12 years, with no noticeable side effects. My cholesterol levels are under control, I am happy with that.
Do you feel better on them? Or do you just feel better knowing your lab tests are in the range that the drug companies have decided they should be?
I'm not going to bother to get into these drug company conspiracy theories.
Your choice entirely. It is great that you believe the drug companies are more concerned with your health than with profit. And it is of course your absolute right to have this opinion. None of us are God, what do any of us know really? Naivety offers wonderful protection.
I didn't get on with them after being prescribed them after heart attack . To be honest if you have a good healthy diet , keep yourself fit then have no reason to take them . Doctors are to fond of issuing tablets as a fast cure all , yes sometimes the tablets are needed .
Most people on statins don't really need it and CAN lower their cholesterol by diet and exercise but you have to be consistent and determined and stick to a healthy eating plan plus exercise ... Doctors are quick to prescribe statins because they have no time to educate you ... You need to take control of your health and make informed decisions ... Doctors also know that statins are best sellers and once on them you will be on them for life and that translates to big $$ for the drug companies.. You become a regular source of income for them.
BAUS, you are right that MOST people can reduce their cholesterol with an altered lifestyle. However, for the very large number of families (now suspected to be 1 in every 250) who have inherited a faulty gene, this is not enough and medical intervention is needed.
yes but what Im saying is if your cholesterol levels were normal in the past and have crept up due to lifestyle factors then it will go down if you lose weight etc but some one people just want to pop a pill and continue with unhealthy habits. I have seen people with very low cholesterol but are obese and unhealthy..so whats the use?
It's true that if you have FH you can't lower cholesterol by diet alone, the question is does lowering cholesterol benefit you?
The answer as far as I can see is no. Which is not to say statins don't prevent heart disease they do, but not by lowering cholesterol.
It is a personal decision to make.
As my Father was one of six (four of whom died of heart attacks and one a stroke between the ages of 43 and 60, and all were fit, healthy individuals with balanced diets, energetic lifestyles and ate balanced, freshly made meals) and as I do not want to end my life so young, then my decision was that, once past the menopause I would take a low dose of statin - backed up with Kyolic tablets. I am pleased to say that this has reduced my cholesterol levels to acceptable and I am still alive and very much kicking.
My life … my choice.
It is indeed your choice, but as I say, my family history is a lot more complicated, in that strokes/heart disease so far have only occurred in smokers. My oldest sibling is 70, also has possible FH according to the first consultant I saw and has not had a stroke or heart attack so far - because he doesn't smoke.
Yet every consultant I've seen so far has pooh poohed this and refused to even acknowledge that smoking is a major risk factor for heart disease and stroke!
Given that and the fact I've only got 'possible' FH anyway and no other risk factors - not diabetic, blood pressure normal, non smoker, I'm very disinclined to take preventive medicine for a risk that probably isn't that high.
Of course doctors are going to tell you that. That's how they're trained, to give out drugs. That's what allopathic medicine is, by and large. Medical students are not chosen for their objective viewpoints but for their predilection for compliance. GPs will hand out whatever they're told to hand out - but many will NOT take statins. I personally know people who've suffered serious effects from statins. In any case, there's no actual evidence that they make you live longer. There is a very large Scandinavian study which showed very clearly that women with high cholesterol live longer. In men, there was an association with heart disease with levels either above or below 7. This was just an association and not a proven cause by any means and may not indicate any link at all with heart disease. So low levels would appear, according to this study, to be very undesirable. Of course there are lots of other studies saying different things, but virtually all are sponsored by pharmaceutical companies and statins are probably their biggest goldmine. The public are mugs and the drug companies are very grateful for that.
I must make a correction to my above comment. Lines 7 - 8 should read, "In men, there was an association with heart disease with levels either above 7 or below 5." Apologies for this rather major typo.
It's certainly true that there is NO link between high cholesterol levels and heart disease in women - the Hunt 2 study showed that. On all but one measure there was an inverse relationship, and for Ischaemic heart disease, a woman with a cholesterol of total cholesterol of 6 had the lowest risk, with women with total cholesterol of 7 having the same risk as women with total cholesterol of 5.
You can find the info about this study here.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
More to the point though, statins don't extend overall lifespan in women.
Statins DO reduce risk of heart disease, but they do it through their anti inflammatory and anti coagulant effects, not through cholesterol lowering. That's why other drugs that lower cholesterol don't really have any effect on heart disease risk.
My own view is that if knew I was very high risk, I'd try a statin, but otherwise it's not worth it. You can lower your risk with diet and exercise, particularly exercise.
Your doctor is so right. This bad publicity which affects people's understanding was one of the topics that raised its head at HEART UK's Conference this week. I cannot remember the figures but it is a very vast majority, of the huge number of people who take statins, that have no side effects. I have taken statins for over ten years with no effects at all - apart from giving me a lower cholesterol level and therefore a longer life than my father and his siblings had. I do, very occasionally, suffer leg cramps but then, I did before I took statins. My husband suffered leg cramps regularly but he never took a statin.
My feeling is that the small number of patients who do have side effects get a disproportionate amount of publicity so that people, like yourself, are frightened off them and, if they do take them, then every twinge is blamed on the statin.
Why not listen to your doctor and try them with an open mind.
You say that no-one in your practice will sit down and discuss this with you, why not give HEART UK - the cholesterol charity - a call?
I did contact Heart UK and they told me to address my questions to my consultant! I've seen three so far and they've uniformly refused to discuss any of the points I make
Maybe you could attend HEART UK's Conference next year in Edinbugh and you will have all the top consultants there to discuss with you.
Oh I've already seen one who assures me he's a top consultant. He still wouldn't answer questions even though the questions I wanted to ask were based on legitimate published studies.
I'm afraid my experience is that if you won't take statins they -perhaps from good intentions, but still wrongly in my view - try to scare you into taking them, which is why they're not prepared to discuss the reality which is that risks vary hugely, even for those with diagnosed FH.
And the reason I won't try statins with an open mind is very simple.
It is more likely than not that I won't get any banefit from taking a statin. .Even if my risk of heart disease was 50% and they halved that risk, there is still only a 25% chance the statin would benefit me and a 75% chance they won't..
BUT I don't know what my heart disease risk is. According to my QRISK score it is 6% in the next ten years. But I am told I am high risk because I have possible FH. But it's only possible, so I might not even have it!
Against this I have to set the very hefty possiblity that statins might give me diabetes
Oh and as I'm a woman they probably won't extend my lifespan in any case.
I have repeatedly asked consultants if they can tell me what my risk of heart disease is, but the truth is, they have no idea whatsoever what my risk is.
I can see why you call yourself "Idontbelieveit" now.
Sort of the opposite of all those placebos that work.
I started out prepared to listen, but I soon realised that all the specialists I saw weren't prepared to give information. If they have a good case for their advice then it's up to them to make it. But they seem to expect that I will do something just because they tell them.
I know enough about science to know that a proper scientist will be happy to explain why they believe something. When someone is very reluctant to show the basis for their theory, that makes me think the theory is not sound.
For people who have been told their chol is high its maybe worth looking at any existing/ newish medication they are already taking before agreeing to statins as my blood pressure drug lists in the small print that it can increase chol readings! And yes what a surprise, after many years of my levels being ok, they arent now.
Also i had a friend who was recently hospitalised (for unrelated) and prescribed statins despite his readings being well within the new lowered guideline! He refused them.
This was one of my concerns. I've been taking venlafaxine (an antidepressant) for about 4 years now. After my Dr started pressing me to take statins I read the leaflet carefully on my venlafaxine. What do you know....It can raise cholesterol. I tried to slowly taper off the pills to see if it would effect my cholesterol numbers but unfortunately I am more reliant on them than I realised. I'm only 33 and my cholesterol has always been above 'normal' but (I think) it's only the past few years that it's been so high the Dr thinks it's possibly FH, especially given that I lost 36lbs and increased excerise but my numbers only went up higher. However I lost that weight by following slimming world, which is low fat. I'm now going to try cutting sugar out after doing lots of research. I'm on atorvastatin 20mg at the minute but at my age I really don't want to carry on taking this for life. If I stop my supplements for a few days then I get very tired achy and generally feel old. Once I'm completely free of sugar I'm going to stop taking the statins and get tested in three months. If my levels shoot up again then I'll admit defeat and continue the statins. 1st of October is my date to go sugar free (need to rid the house of all things nasty first)
Hi which meds are you on. That's interesting about them raising your cholesterol. Mine was normal until I started taking blood pressure meds 2 years ago which I am trying to get off.
Hi Rocheen, me personally im on Lacidipine, but if i remember rightly i had to look through a few websites to actually find it. It wasnt on the info leaflet provided with the drug!
I was getting too many of the other side effects as well and decided to really look into what it could be and by chance found out about the high chol reading, and by the reaction of gp i would suggest he was familiar with it because he agreed with me( might have been just to shut me up though! Lol) ironically i personally feel better without any meds but maybe thats because i never wanted them in the first place.
I have been given 7 different bp meds within the last couple of years! All because i seemed to have multiple side effects with all of them. It turns out my B12 was very low and because so many symptoms are similar for so many illnesses, they missed it, or werent really listening to what i was saying!
I even saw a cardiologist at hospital who rudely informed me i should expect some side effects and not a wonder drug! But i must have confounded him because he has ordered so many different scans and tests.
Research is the key. Dont just stop your medication. Try to find the reasons behind having to have them in the first place. Is it stress, weight etc and try to remedy the underlying cause. I did this before and it worked. I was drug free for a number of years. Lost a lot of weight, and didnt let life's stresses get to me too much. And found out i suffer white coat which meant every time i went to gp my bp was through the roof. Got a home monitor to prove that.
Good luck
Lisa
I wonder if thats my problem ! They are now going to fit something on my arm that I will have to wear for a week which will give my BP readings under home environment
Dee
24 hour heat monitor do help. During the day make a note of the reading, write down the time as well. When My wife had a 24 hour heart monitor I did this to do a graph.
The doctor also do a graph to analyse the reading. Soon after the heart monitor check my wife decided to follow me to the GYM and she is a fitter person now.!!!
You can see the readings at each time the machine kicks in so if it seems high to you make a note of how you feel at the time ie. Stressed, upset etc it helps to understand why it is high at any given time, and will give gp a fairer idea.
Thanks for that....I have had 3 kids while holding down 2 jobs with a husband who worked away a lot....All without high blood pressure.
Now I am retired...am keeping active with 3 grandchildren. ..I have cholesterol and high blood pressure?
I know the feeling! Some of us seem to thrive on stress but keel over when theres nothing to worry about. Lol
How brave.....I too have been reading about sugar being the new enemy but finding it impossible to give up my sweet treats
you don't have to give them up entirely, just alter the balance of your diet in favour of less sugary foods and more natural unrefined foods.
There are a lot of chocolate bars for example that come in at around 100 calories. One isn't going to do you any harm now and them.
We have new information "Free Sugar" / "Hidden Sugar" . There is sugar in fresh veg and fruits, this may be different to added sugar in manufactured food.
It can be difficult to avoid sugar and products made from sugar, food and drinks.
One can try slowly to cut sugar down.
Yes its a completely different thing, fructose.
Its the added stuff in cakes, biscuits etc etc which is the real no no.
I had a heart attack earlier in the year and consultant deduced from a few questions that my problem is hereditary so I needed to go on statins , no explanation, no discussion, no information . The only thing he said afterwards was had I not been a runner then I might have had a massive stroke. 3 stents fitted nearly 3 months later and I actually feel that my health is worse (breathing wise) which could be the ramapril , statins really disagreed with me , clopidogrel makes me bleed more and really bad bruising , long term taking of aspirin (on them for life) - don't think so! . It's all about profit for the drug companies .
Before I started running my blood pressure was very high , took up running and blood pressure became normal (stopped taking tablets) .
I did not do cardio rehab (hospital were not happy) but went back to running and have reduced my high heart rate , can run around 15-20 miles a week , run races, have a final consultant appointment in December as I do have some questions regarding chest pain in area of the heart op (all in the mind apparently) , will stop the aspirin and clopidogrel as I'm only supposed to be on them 6-12 months .
Tablets are not always the answer but lifestyle changes can work better .
Sermon over
Statins
Statins
STATINS OR NOT? 
I understand I need to take statins (cholesterol 7.8) but now (?) aspirin? Differing doctor's opinions?
Statin