Daily Mail Front Page 29th August 2012"GIVE STATINS TO ALL OVER-50S"

Here we go again! Why is it that "experts" want us to take drugs to make their lives easier and the pockets of the drug companies fuller?

After reading, twice, the full article I see that they totally disregard any side effects as "minor". Depression, memory loss, sexual disfunction,cataracts and diabetes are "minor"?????????

I know heart attacks and strokes are major, I am not an idiot, but to those people who live on the tightrope of taking statins to keep these at bay and suffering all or some of the above side effects are not leading a happy life. They are existing with two gremlins on their shoulders and I have nothing but admiration to all and any of you in this position.

I have a slightly raised cholesterol level. I have had to change my diet as a consequence of dairy intolerance and a "side effect" of that is that my levels have improved. I don't know why. My GP wasn't remotely interested when I last saw her for my yearly figures. She just wanted me to lose a stone in weight and eat a more vegetarian diet!! I have a BMI of 24 and have no wish to fiddle with my diet that now sees me totally free of IBS and I have, in fact, lost nearly 7lbs without trying!!

Of course, there are those who have a poor diet, who smoke, drink too much and take little or no exercise. But, for years, there have been warnings about all of these things and there will always be those who totally ignore them all!!! Do we, who try to do what we can to keep as well as we can, have to be penalised for the ignorance of the minority by being forced to take a path that we do not really want to go down just because the medical profession can see that this route will be a "catch all" way of solving their problems!!! (And a cheap one at that!)

Ahhh, I feel better for that rant. Excuse me all of you. I know that to many of you taking the statin route has undoubtedly kept you well and I wish you full health. I also wish you all freedom of all side effects too, and a life that is full of joy.

Best wishes to you all

9 Replies

oldestnewest
  • Hi Patch,

    The Daily Mail is a bit slow on this, these were the headlines back in May.See Architect's post and comments. They must be short on news to regurgitate this, along with the nauseating picture of that model happily devouring her pill.

    . Keep ranting!

  • Daily Fail! Tomorrow, it'll probably be that Statins cause cancer!

  • Hi Allywally, Many thanks. Newspapers and the media in general have an awful lot to answer for sometimes when it comes to reporting health issues. They are very quick to complain about how the NHS fails in this and that and support various post code lottery complaints but when it comes to something as fundamental as the blanket medication of a whole population they are not very forthcoming about it!!

    Remember the battles royal about the MMR vaccine fiasco in the 1990s.

  • some of what you say is correct, but of course there will be many many exceptions to your 'rant'. You admit yourself that you had to alter your lifestyle , some people can alter theirs also but sometimes it's either too late or not enough, and if taking statins helps these people to stay alive why would they not be given? or am I missing the point here? they have certainly kept me well, and I don't have any side effects,. I don't think I will be the only person taking them without side effects.

    No Doctor can push the tablet down anyones throat -all a matter of choice.

  • I think it would help if the payments the major drug companies make to their speakers/spokespersons are published online as is done in the USA. This is particularly important where an individual (as in this Daily Mail example) is heavily involved in the planning, promotion and progress of a £96 million research project for Merck and was personally involved in assisting Merck get statin related research project approved by the FDA.

    Where university researchers are so dependent on one major source of funding, the suspicion that the results of their research will be tailored to keep their financial backers happy is entirely reasonable.

    We need in the UK more openness, so the payments Merck (and other pharmaceutical companies) make to individuals, the extent of grants paid to charities, universities and the expenses/inducements distributed is made available online.

    Here is an example from the USA.. pharmedout.org/index.htm

    There are good reasons "Why Most Published Research Findings Are False" as John P. A. Ioannidis explains.

  • I'm not sure how statins acquired this wonder drug status and it doesn't do anybody any favours, well apart from the profit out of them.

    The people who can really benefit from them are put off by adverse publicity and daft statements like everybody over 50 should take them. You only have to read the comments from this article in the Mail to realise that the British public seems to be totally adverse to mass medication (and I don't blame them).

    Why can't statins be seen as a drug to help people with a certain medical condition instead of a sort of universal panacea for long life. I'm trying to think of another drug that has acquired this almost mythical status.

  • I agree. I have altered my lifestyle but not because I am in need of help with my cholesterol. I needed help with over 20 years of IBS which had made my life unbearable and my GP more and more reluctant to test me for intolerances because the medical profession only see "allergies" as the food problem and not a build up of intolerances. It is not in their perview to see food as the enemy. It is supposed to be a friend, and only those with obvious life threatening allergies are seen as what they are, in need of immediate help. I was ignored and had to eventually go privately to a clinic to get the help and advice I needed. One year later and it was £250 well spent!!

    There is only one place for universal medication and that is the immunisation of babies to protect them from those life threatening diseases that killed millions (and still does in underdeveloped countries).

    I remember sitting in the GPs some time ago and listening to a near hysterical mother-to-be who swore that she would not "poison her child with chemicals" and was going to refuse to have her baby immunised against anything, not even tetanus, polio or dyphtheria .

    An elderly lady spoke up and said "if you had seen what I have seen. My three year old brother dying of dyphtheria slowly suffocating as his throat closed up you would have your child immunised".

    The medical profession has come a long way, and thankfully it does a wonderful job on the whole. But, I do object to this, "we know best" approach of some within the profession who still insist on treating us like children and only telling us what they want us to know. We are all so much better at questioning decisions in all aspects of our lives that affect us and long may we do so. It is to our advantage that we continue to question anything that is going to affect our health.

    If statins are the way to go then so be it, but only for those who elect to take them because they know without them their lives would not be so healthy.

  • Got to love the Daily Mail?!

    Statin's definitely have their place - and the cost benefit ratio for those without side effects is undeniable.

    We do feel for those suffering though! More education is needed on ways to reduce cholesterol naturally without statins. Lifestyle is key.

    betabalance.com

  • Hello betabalance. I am somewhat bemused that a "product" company has joined the debate. This is not the place to advertise your wares. However, those of you who wish to look at your website are, of course, welcome to do so.

You may also like...