I have been diagnosed with high cholesterol 7.04 with my LDL being 5.2
My HDL and Triglyercerides are within range.
My diet is very good except I eat good quality dairy and some red meat. I also exercise daily. I take Berberine and a fish oil daily.
Diet only contributes about 10% of cholesterol while the liver produces over 75% I know Hypothyroidism is related to high cholesterol and Im not sure why, but is Hyperthyroidism related too?
What can help the liver produce less cholesterol?
I don't know anything about the relationship of cholesterol levels and hyperthyroidism, but it's probably not your liver over-producing cholesterol. More like the body being unable to use what it does produce correctly, and it mounting up in the blood.
I find the whole business of testing cholesterol very dodgey, anyway. Because they don't test the cholesterol itself, but the protein carriers: HDL and LDL. Which if find suspicious, to say the least! For one thing, if it's in the carriers, going round in the blood, it's not going to be blocking arteries, is it.
Personally, I wouldn't worry about high cholesterol levels. It doesn't cause heart attacks or strokes as doctors claim. And, it's better than having low levels because that really does put you at risk of a heart attack!
There is such conflicting info on the web. I have listened to Dr Berry, Dr Berg etc plus looked at advice by Clevelend Clinic etc. Its hard to know who to believe.
I dont eat processed food or sugar but I dont want to stop eating natural food like dairy and meat.
And nor should you stop eating them! Ingested cholesterol has little to do with anything because the liver adjusts what it makes to take that into account and keep levels steady. But, when T3 is low, the body cannot process cholesterol correctly and it tends to build up in the soft tissues.
And, your FT3 is now too low: Free T3 4.1 pmol/L (Range: 3.1 - 6.8). Only 27.03% through the range! Should be more like 50% at the very least. So, that's what's causing your high cholesterol.
As for opinions on internet, it depends whose side you're on: Big Pharma's or common sense! Big Pharma wants every one on statins and will stop at nothing to achieve its ends. Have you checked out Dr Malcolm Kendrick?
He's very good on cholesterol.
my Thyroglobulin Antibodies remain high and I'm not sure how to lower them.
Why would you want to lower them? They're not doing you any harm. And are certainly not causing your high cholesterol.
Were you originally diagnosed with Graves'? Were Graves' antibodies tested: TRAB and TSI? Seems to me more likely that you have Hashi's or Ord's. If so, carbi was the wrong treatment. But doctors see suppressed TSH and leap to conclusions without doing the proper testing. What were your TSH/FT4/FT3 levels on diagnosis?
Ok thanks I'll check out Dr Malcolm Kendrick. I didnt know low Free T3 can cause high cholesterol. I'm not on Big Pharma side but my husband is or rather he doesnt want to believe its all about money and economics.
Yes I was orginally diagnosed with graves at the hospital. My TSH was 0.01 and my Free T4 was about 72. I'd lost a lot of weight as well. Carbimazole certainly did help me alot but I managed to slowly wean myself off it.
My understanding is that I am euthyroid as I am not on any medication and my TSH, T4 an T3 remain within range but I am not in remission as my TRabs are not in range.
Just being in-range is not at all the same thing as being euthyroid. Your FT4 and TSH are around euthyroid levels but your FT3 is too low. And, that is the definition of hypthyroidism.
The only way to raise your FT3, as I see it, is to take T3.
It’s also worth checking out The Great Cholesterol Myth by Bowden and Sinatra
What are your most recent thyroid and vitamin results
TSH, Ft4 and Ft3 plus vitamin D, folate, ferritin and B12
These results were done this week by Medichecks. I have been off Carbimazole for about 3 years and have stayed in range for TSH Free T4 and Free T3 However my Thyroglobulin Antibodies remain high and I'm not sure how to lower them.
Inflammation CRP HS 0.588 mg/L (Range: < 3)
Iron Status Ferritin 95.80 ug/L (Range: 30 - 650)
Vitamins
Folate - Serum 11.2 nmol/L (Range: > 7)
Vitamin B12 - Active 75.3 pmol/L (Range: 37.5 - 188)
Vitamin D 84.6 nmol/L (Range: 50 - 250)
Thyroid Hormones
TSH 1.610 mIU/L (Range: 0.27 - 4.2)
Free T3 4.1 pmol/L (Range: 3.1 - 6.8)
Free Thyroxine 17.6 pmol/L (Range: 12 - 22)
Autoimmunity
Thyroglobulin Antibodies X 374.00 kIU/L (Range: 0 - 115)
Thyroid Peroxidase Antibodies <9 kIU/L (Range: 0 - 34)
What vitamin supplements are you taking
Have you tried being on gluten free diet
FT4: 17.6 pmol/l (Range 12 - 22)
Ft4 56.00% through range
FT3: 4.1 pmol/l (Range 3.1 - 6.8)
Ft3 only 27.03% through range
Improving your low Ft3 would improve cholesterol levels
When I had Graves’ disease (overactive with antibodies) my cholesterol was the lowest it has ever been. Now I am in remission my TSH has crept up as has my cholesterol - like you my triglycerides and HDL are good - just the LDL that lets me down.
I’m not going to take statins but at the moment I’m experimenting with giving Benecol drinks and spread a three month trial - partly to see what happens and partly in the hope that it will get the nurse who does my blood tests off my back.
Yes I'm not going to take statins either. However I would feel happier if I could slightly reduce my LDL and increase my HDL and like you unless I reduce my LDL I'll have the GP on my back.
I start the day with a glass of warm lemon water. Then my breakfast is plain farm kefir with a teaspoon of wild blueberry powder, cinnamon, turmeric, cacao nibs, chia seeds, sprouted flax seeds, collagen, hazelnuts and mulberries, blueberries,sometimes pomegranite seeds. So I do have lots of fibre. It is a mystery.
Brazil nuts are the nuts of choice to lower cholesterol, by the way.
I’m experimenting with giving Benecol drinks and spread a three month trial - partly to see what happens and partly in the hope that it will get the nurse who does my blood tests off my back.
Yuk! I cannot imagine they are going to do you any good, nor reduce your cholesterol. Tell the nurse to go take a hike. She knows nothing. Your cholesterol is your business, not hers. Artificially reducing cholesterol is not the answer. Your body needs it. To reduce it naturally, increase your FT3 level.
Have you read the ingredients of the Benecol drinks?
Yogurt (85%) (Skimmed Milk, Yogurt Cultures),
Water,
Plant Stanol Ester (Plant Stanols 3%),
Lemon Juice,
Stabiliser (Pectin),
Sweetener (Sucralose),
Vitamin B1*,
*Vitamin B1 contributes to the normal function of the heart.
How is any of that going to reduce cholesterol? Oh yes! Plant Stanols. 
Do you know how they 'work'?
Plant sterols and stanols have a similar chemical structure to cholesterol. They are thought to work by reducing the absorption of cholesterol in the gut so more is lost in the faeces (poo). This helps to lower total cholesterol and non-HDL cholesterol (the bad cholesterol) in the blood.
bda.uk.com/resource/food-fa...
For a start, there's no such thing as 'good' and 'bad' cholesterol. And secondly, if you absorb less cholesterol from your food, the liver is just going to make more in order to keep levels steady.
What's more, Benecol drinks contain artificial sweeteners, so not healthy at all.
I'm not totally with you on the good-bad cholesterol here. But I'd need to do some digging to demonstrate. We do know that fats from Olive Oil, Avocados and nuts ARE good for the body, so perhaps this is where the idea has arisen? I'd say the levels of cholesterol in the liver are more significant than those in the bloodstream. But the whole thing is much more nuanced than we're led to believe and a lot of the mainstream medical guidance is based on stats for likelihood of cardiovascular problems - a risk factor calculation. From the reading and learning I've done, adding more fibre to our diet helps break down cholesterol, which seems to me a pleasant and risk free approach to addressing high cholesterol levels.
Yes, there are some fats that are better for you than others. But fats have nothing to do with cholesterol. They are two entirely different substances, and one does not magically turn into the other when eaten.
As you said, HDL and LDL are just protein carriers. As far as I know, there's no such thing as a bad protein. The cholesterol inside is just cholesterol, neither good nor bad. Good and bad cholesterol is just something Big Pharma invented to scare people into taking statins.
From the reading and learning I've done, adding more fibre to our diet helps break down cholesterol, which seems to me a pleasant and risk free approach to addressing high cholesterol levels.
Yes, but high fibre diets are not going to help hypos - and it's usually hypos that have high cholesterol. A more risk-free approach to addressing high cholesterol is to optimise your FT3, because it's the low T3 of hypothyroisim that is causing the cholesterol to build up in the arteries.
Yes, I've picked this up re FT3 and - as you know- super difficult to get labs to test for it if your TSH and T4 are in range. My.GP managed to get my.T3 done once, by requesting it as a separate blood test, last July. Level was 4.6. No record of range. What info do we have about optimal levelsGP is reasonably open so I can push to have a retest.
A result without a range is useless. You can't guess the range because they vary from lab to lab. And you can't know if that result is high low or middle without the ranges. Also, just testing the FT3 by itself won't tell you how well you convert. So, I'm afraid that test was a waste of time - not to mention the blood!
LOL. I had two separate tests requested at that time on the same day I.e. blood was taken at same time on same day. But I take your point about range. I'm going to request a separate T3 test when I go for my thyroid levels retest on Wednesday. I know they won't test for FT3 without a separate instruction. Infuriates me that labs do this.
I’d be cautious about benecol. It’s highly processed and contains a list of ingredients our bodies haven’t evolved to digest.
Having said that I agree it’s v hard to know what information to use. My gut tells me that we should eat food we’ve evolved with.
Re cholesterol I don’t think there’s a big conspiracy. I do think there’s an issue with heart problems and high cholesterol. I can’t believe that 90% of heart specialists are wrong and in on some sort of conspiracy or completely delusional. Statins have contributed to a massive reduction in heart attacks. There’s lots of evidence to prove that. The vast majority of people aren’t eating what they should be and have a poor diet and I think statins are appropriate. However I think there’s a good chunk of the population who do eat well and exercise and have high cholesterol. I think the OP and many people here fall in to that category and it’s not clear what we should be doing if anything about it except trying to optimise our thyroid and vitamin levels.
I can’t believe that 90% of heart specialists are wrong and in on some sort of conspiracy or completely delusional.
90% of endos - if not 100%! - are wrong about thyroid, so why wouldn't 90% of heart specialist be wrong about cholesterol.
Hi Greygoose I see your logic. Endos are beyond cr*p. There’s something about thyroid disease which is so body wide that medics can’t or won’t get their heads around it. I also think there’s a massive dose of misogyny as it’s a predominantly a female problem.
However I’ve met some fantastic heart specialists, thoughtful, well read etc. One is really into breathing techniques to regulate the autonomic system so not luddites and they all believe high cholesterol can be problematic. So I’m cautious about dismissing this out of hand.
There’s also some bonkers ‘experts’ out there who have absolutely no research knowledge and conspiracy theories galore who make claims that can’t be substantiated. Some in the thyroid field.
So should someone with very high levels of cholesterol carry on as normal and not take action. I don’t think so. It needs to be a carefully considered approach. I wouldn’t dismiss statins out of hand. They’re some of the most researched drugs and their efficacy has been v well proven. Would I want to take them? Not if I could avoid but if nothing else worked I’d not dismiss all that research and weight of evidence out of hand.
Given that statins cause prostate cancer in my friend, I certainly wouldn't take them!
But what about all the research and weight of evidence that says that cholesterol is not the problem they make it out to be? Works both ways.
Hi Greygoose I’m sorry to hear that but considering it’s one of the most common male cancers that can occur over a v long time period wouldn’t it be hard to prove statins caused it? I think it’s important to keep an open mind. I’m not saying statins haven’t got side effects but meta analyses prove they are beneficial on the whole - until there’s more proof they are causing more harm than good I think it’s worth remaining open about them.
Statins are notorious for causing hormone-dependant cancers, like breast cancer and prostate cancer. That is because taking them reduces testosterone and progesterone, which are made of cholesterol. My friend didn't even have high cholesterol. His GP wanted him to take them 'just in case'. Which is criminal!
Mmm I think we are going to have to agree to disagree Greygoose especially as you’re an institution on here and greatly appreciated 🤗
Hi Jane
There is a YouTube video of Malcolm Kendrick explaining the stats behind the Jupiter trial its called doctoring data and was a recording of a presentation to the cross-fit community. I found it not unsurprising except that the obfuscation of the real results had been so readily gobbled up by the medical powers that be. Somewhat in the same way TSH became the gold standard. 🙄
I've started reading the Bianco Book on hypothyroidism - 2 chapters in so far - well thank goodness - brave guy for stepping out of the echo chamber. of course there will probably be the usual rubbishing of reputation attempted or perhaps they are a bit more laid back than in the UK.
The big problem generally in medical research for me is they have abandoned the basic principles of scientific methodology and the research is the worse for it. Having studied science I was absolutely amazed when I started reading papers on thyroid research.......
I hope you don't mind me referring to you personally in my reply to janeroar a few mins ago (below). Re cholesterol to which you referred, it appears that medics nowadays prescribe statins just because of factors such as age and irrespective of cholesterol levels.
For example, my uncle was recently prescribed them with a normal cholesterol level just because he turned 70 (a birthday present?). I suspect they'd justify it in such cases based on the QRisk factor they adopt which increases with age etc. Of course, they use QRF2 because it makes the case stronger than the several others out there!
Re your comment "meta analyses prove they are beneficial on the whole", please supply independent, scientific links. I have masses of scientific reports confirming statin harm and would welcome contrary evidence if there is any. Thanks, in advance.
hi there there is a lot of evidence. Here’s just one. Just to add I’m not a flag bearer for statins, would really not want to take them if I could possibly avoid it but I am not of the view that the vast majority of cardiologists and vascular researchers are delusional or in on some sort of conspiracy theory to poison us all at the behest of drug companies. Think if that was true I’d give up on the human race! Having said that I do think people are given them when they should be advised to try and change their diet and lifestyle if they can.
jamanetwork.com/journals/ja....
There is tremendous uncertainty surrounding the nature and frequency of statin-associated adverse events, complicating discussions about the potential benefits and risks of statins.33,34 Meta-analyses of randomized clinical trials of statins have generally shown that adverse event rates are similar in participants randomized to statin or placebo, suggesting no significant increase in adverse events with statins.35,36 However, many have argued that because trial populations are generally healthier than real-world clinical populations, observational studies may provide a more accurate estimate of the frequency of adverse events in clinical practice.37-39 These observational studies of statins in real-world clinical populations suggest that 10% to 25% of statin users have muscular symptoms,6,40-42 with a substantial minority discontinuing statins owing to the severity of these symptoms.43 Although studies suggest that patients who discontinue statins owing to adverse effects are often able to tolerate statins subsequently,44 high-quality observational studies suggest that statin-associated adverse events occur more frequently in clinical practice than randomized clinical trials.33,37,38 In addition, observational studies suggest a small but likely real increased risk of developing type 2 diabetes (about 0.2% per year of treatment).45
Taken together, our TTB estimation and previously published studies suggest that statins have substantial benefits (reducing MACEs by 0.4%-3.9% during 2.5 years) (Table 1) that accrue over time. Counterbalancing these benefits are the burdens and potential harms of statin therapy that usually occur within weeks of initiation
From the link you sent, I agree with your preference to avoid statins as many do.
In brief, after a speed-read, it basically indicates a potential 1% cvd benefit after 2.5y without a mortality benefit. And that should be balanced against the greater weight of harms such as increased insulin resistance which could lead to cvd, diabetes and cognitive problems such as dementia. All these effects are scientifically reported, along with others, and I can send links, if you wish.
Unless the link you sent is the best you have, I would again welcome details of "a lot of evidence" that you now refer to in case it partly counterbalances the scientific evidence that I have e.g. as indicated above. Ive never felt the need to consider doing a full risk-benefit analysis (like ones Ive done for covid and flu vaccinations) largely because of the weight of reported risks.
So I can understand why many nowadays oppose the use of statins e.g. greygoose on here(!). If medical authorities are so certain that they are beneficial for those prescribed with them, I feel they must be more open and present better scientific data. Otherwise it will understandably be assumed there's none and the numerous conspiracy theories re vested interests will continue.
PS Personally I believe there may be a divide based on age etc and this article indicates that nature.com/articles/s41598-....
Having said that I do think people are given them when they should be advised to try and change their diet and lifestyle if they can.
But high cholesterol has nothing to do with diet and lifestyle. I have naturally low cholesterol - it is now dangerously low, according to the lab that tested it, since I've been on T3 mono-therapy. Yet I stuff myself with cheese, cream, butter, eggs... all the things they say we shouldn't eat due to cholesterol content.
I am not of the view that the vast majority of cardiologists and vascular researchers are delusional or in on some sort of conspiracy theory to poison us all at the behest of drug companies.
Neither am I. They're not delusional, they're just not interested. They're not part of a conspiracy theory, they just don't question the status quoi. They don't ask questions. I would never suggest that doctors are all out to kill us - what would be the point of that? But they're not out to cure us, either. As they say, a patient cured is a customer lost - lost definitively if the patient dies! There are a lot of things doctors like to prescribe that I wouldn't take because I feel they are prescribing them by rote, without any interest in my needs as an individual, nor my best interests. That's just what they do: prescribe drugs.
Tried scanning a photograph of the ingredients but it won’t work so here’s a list.
The ingredients on my pack are nothing like those above. - there is no palm oil, no emulsifiers, 85% yoghurt, 3% plant stainless, water, 3% raspberry, apple purée, lemon juice, the stabiliser is pectin , doesn’t say what the flavouring is, colour is is beetroot juice and B1 - sweetener is sucralose which is pretty nasty stuff but the ingredients are quite different from what you have listed above.
That was the ingredient list of the benecol spread I posted which I thought you were using. Glad the drinks don’t have the other stuff in.
Aha, I bought and tried the spread but it really is vile so it’s for the bin. I’m afraid I’m a butter lover - grass fed butter for me 🐄 There really is nothing to beat butter.
i have a friend who is a scientist - PhD at that and if we ever go out for coffee and have a scone she asks for Flora margarines (complete with chemicals) and I have butter.
Me too. Delicious. 😋
It was scientists who came up with idea of flora. Yuck. 🤮
Whilst more households using butter again the reality is more and more margarine being used in processed food with rise of vegan food.
I have to agree , I found quite a lot of the so called healthier spreads are vile, my daughter kept saying she couldn't eat certain spreads cos they taste and smell funny. I know what she means now, often there is a smell , the same smell, that years ago would have resulted in things going straight into the bin. Sweet/sour sort of rancid, most unpleasant. Yes real butter, little bit of salt added all the way. So many additives and processes go into the making of artificial spreads . Wish I could remember but there is a vague memory of finding out that lots of additives came from waste products of industrial processes, they were meant for machines not humans.
There is a YouTube video of Malcolm Kendrick explaining the stats behind the Jupiter trial. I found it not unsurprising except that the obfuscation of the real results had been so readily gobbled up by the medical powers that be. I’m with greygoose on this 100%.
I would never tell anyone what to think but I would explore different sources. Malcolm (as far as I know) has never been directly refuted…. They just ignore, de-platform and attempt to rubbish him. It is an overused tactic that is beginning to draw attention to itself and that which they try to brush off.
They just ignore, de-platform and attempt to rubbish him.
I was horrified when his wikipedia page was deleted. And when people complained, the wiki editor(s) fought back and were really insulting. Dr K did mention it in a couple of blogs :
drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/...
drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/...
I just googled "malcolm kendrick" (actually I used DuckDuckGo not google) and I had to scroll and scroll and scroll before finding the link to his blog. which for future reference for other readers is :
Hello Tennis :
The Antibodies unique to Graves Disease are generally written as a TRab - a Thyroid Receptor blocking antibody or a TSI a Thyroid Stimulating antibody - presumably one of these two are are also being monitored ?
Graves is an Auto Immune Disease and there is no cure for this AI disease which can wax and wane throughout one's life - and whilst everybody's journey with Graves is unique to them - stress and anxiety do tend to be common trigger factors.
I found Elaine Moore's books and website the most well rounded of all my research but sadly too late for me and after I had been treated with RAI thyroid ablation and more ill than before I had this presumed ' safe ' treatment.
We do now have some research papers you may find of interest :-
I think greygoose makes a good point about carriers being tested in the bloodstream. The only way to tell if our arteries are clogged (which is what the medics worry about - and so should we of course) is my having a scan. CAT scan I think. But you mention cholesterol levels in the liver - is this over the mark as well? Because that tells you about absorption as far as I understand it.
There are supplements you can take - Red Yeast Rice is one (contains the same active ingredient as in some statins but in plant form) - people on the AF forum mention this. And I'm currently trying a supplement called BioPlantarum Plus from Biocare which is a plant sterol made from a culture that helps the gut absorp fats. A member of the AF forum recommended it to me as my own LDL is a bit high. If your HDL is high, it doesn't matter- its the LDL we need to pay attention to.
Then there is the whole thing about statins - which is almost certainly what you'll be offered. Check these out - they can be quite damaging and the NICE guidelines are you should not be on them if hypothyroid. I don't know about hyper.
My thought for you would be to do some digging- follow some of the Tim Spector videos on YouTube and the Zoe posts. They have done somw excellent research and are thought leaders on healthband digestion. It might be that you just need to add more fibre to your diet. Oatmeal, lentils and other pulses are a good start. No reason why you cannot include pulses with fish and meat meals. Saves money too!
The only way to tell if our arteries are clogged (which is what the medics worry about - and so should we of course) is my having a scan.
Yes, but there's a problem with that... If the arteries are damaged, there is going to be cholesterol, because cholesterol is nature's sticking plaster. It covers over the damaged area while it heals. Once it's healed, the cholesterol is absorbed into the cell walls, because that's what they're made of. But that's not the cholesterol blocking the arteries. In fact, that is the reason you're more likely to have a heart attack with low cholesterol than high, because you just don't have the sticking plasters to heal the wounds. The damaged arteries are inflammed and block circulation of blood.
healthunlocked.com/thyroidu...
But you mention cholesterol levels in the liver - is this over the mark as well? Because that tells you about absorption as far as I understand it.
Not sure you've understood it correctly. Cholesterol is made in the liver, and tries to keep the level steady. So, the more you consume (and absorb) the less it makes, and vice versa.
There are supplements you can take - Red Yeast Rice is one (contains the same active ingredient as in some statins but in plant form)
Yes, but why would you want to? The cholesterol isn't doing you any harm. The body needs it.
As to plant sterols, you must have read my response to Fruiteandnutcase because you commented on it. So, I'll ask again, how would plant sterols reduce cholesterol when the liver balances what it makes against what you ingest. If the sterol blocks the absorption of cholesterol, the liver will just make more.
Thanks - appreciate this discussion. So why DO we measure cholesterol levels in the liver and why is there am upper bench mark? My levels are mid high. So what's the significance of that? Granted medics aren't up to speed in the thyroid, especially hypothyroidism it seems .but there must be a reason for checking these levels.
What's the reason for checking cholesterol at all? To get more people on statins, that's all.
No, it's more to check on liver function than anything else. The liver not only produces cholesterol but also clears excess. If the liver is not functioning correctly, cholesterol levels can be abnormal.
So are we saying that the range therefore is to do with those levels bring normal-abnormal? I'm very anti statins and that whole thing that our GPs are instructed to do. I've fought them off 3 times in the last 15 months. But to make an informed decision I like to knownthe reasoning behind it from a clinical point of view.
Are you aware it is possible to have Graves HYPOthyroidism? thyroidpatients.ca/2021/12/...
I searched on Graves HYPOthyroidism and this is the search results:
thyroidpatients.ca/?s=Grave...
I suspect your fT3 is too low compared to your fT4. A quick rule of thumb test is fT3 ÷ fT4 when not on any thyroid meds containing T3. Yours is 0.23 which indicates you are a poor/ intermediate converter.
See Midgley et al research 'variation in the biochemical response to l-thyroxine therapy and relationship with peripheral thyroid hormone conversion efficiency '. ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
You could try taking 5mcg liothyronine to see the effect on your cholesterol.
Have you a family history of heart disease. You may have a genetic predisposition for high cholesterol. Familial hypercholesterolaemia. The current medical treatment for this is statins.
Thanks everyone for your helpful replies and it gives me something to work on and research further.
😉. I bet it does.
Have look at Dr Aseem Malhotra’s book A Statin Free Life. It is very interesting as is this article diabetes.co.uk/in-depth/ase...
I second the look into Dr Aseem Malhotra's work. He had taken the time to really look at the data sets from drug trials, and process them out to see what, if any, benefits happen with the statins. He has some good pod casts, too, where he explains what he found in the data.
I am a statin-injured person who took them long before I was dx with hypothyroidism. I am convinced that I was hypo for years, and the ONLY thing my gp would focus in on was the high cholesterol (I remember him circling the number and writing "bad" next to it). It took five more years and a long, incredibly painful debilitating experience (all because I was scared of a heart attack) before running into an MD that thought to check my thyroid. My cholesterol is now fine - with NO medication. I still live with the loss of strength and muscle mass, as well as residual pain from the statins.
It is my belief that doctors no longer have the time to really do the the investigation into drug research and simply rely on pharma sales people to give them the low-down on the studies, which are often, skewed and paid for by pharma. Maybe I'm being a bit of a blow-hard skeptic, but education about cholesterol and statins is important to me. So, TennisUK, do your research and check in with yourself on what is best for you. You live in your body 24 hours a day, and know it better than ANYONE ELSE in the world. Be wise and kind to yourself.
Hight TSH and High LDL cholesterol connection
High cholesterol 
High cholesterol 
high cholesterol
Graves’ disease - Carbimazole - high cholesterol 
