# Statins



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Do you take statins? I've been on them since diagnosis and always been uneasy about taking drugs that interfere in what is a pretty significant way with my body chemistry. Last night I decided to stop taking them, after reading 'The Great Cholesterol Con' - see my review at http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4114

I accept that I may be taking a risk with my future health by doing this, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone until they have read up about it and, if necessary consulted their doctor. But the way I see it as far as I am concerned the benefits of taking them are far outweighed by the potential risks.

Just wondering if others have come to this conclusion, or what people perceive as the benefits - beyond the usual media hype about 'wonder drugs'?


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

I was put on them when 1st diagnoised along with 2x metaformin ..but taken off when pratice nurse saw me taking one of kids to see doc and said you look awful get an appointmtnt asap...which i did, was taken off statins and reduced my metaformin to 1x daily...colestrol still high (trig 3.8) but im working on it!


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 10, 2009)

I was put on statins a few days after being diagnosed. My cholesterol is sky high it seems. I don't seem to have had too many side effects* but am very concerned about the long term implications. In the short term however I'll keep using them, I need all the help I can get. It's only been a month.

*Not that I could tell as they seem to be the same as the ones for Metformin and I was miserable anyway.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 10, 2009)

*But Why Take Them*



Northerner said:


> Do you take statins? I've been on them since diagnosis and always been uneasy about taking drugs that interfere in what is a pretty significant way with my body chemistry. Last night I decided to stop taking them, after reading 'The Great Cholesterol Con' - see my review at http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4114
> 
> I accept that I may be taking a risk with my future health by doing this, and wouldn't recommend it to anyone until they have read up about it and, if necessary consulted their doctor. But the way I see it as far as I am concerned the benefits of taking them are far outweighed by the potential risks.
> 
> Just wondering if others have come to this conclusion, or what people perceive as the benefits - beyond the usual media hype about 'wonder drugs'?



Dear Northerner,

I agree with your point about risk and benefit, but the real point at issue is the reason they are prescribed. The overwhelming reason is that they lower cholesterol because it is believed that high cholesterol causes heart disease (did you watch Malcolm Kendrick's video that I included in a recent post?). However, it is now becoming clear that cholesterol and saturated fat do not cause heart disease. Statins work because they are powerful anti-inflamatory drugs so unless you have elevated C reactive protein they should not even be considered and even then only if it's elevated due to inflamation connected with heart disease. BTW, I note VBH has stopped them also!

Regards  Dodger

PS Good review - found it very illuminating too


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Hi Dodger, I think this is the key point I took away from the book - cholesterol levels have not been proven beyond doubt to contribute to heart disease and statins only appear to be of benefit in a way that is not related to their cholesterol-lowering properties! 

I'm beginning to view the medical establishment in much the same way that I view greedy bankers, I'm afraid.  Doctors get paid for keeping patients' cholesterol levels low (via statins), researchers get paid for interpreting results of trials (designed by pharma giants) in a way that will increase the market for drugs, pharma giants just get paid - full stop! How can it be that we are now being made to believe that everyone over 50 should be on largely unproven drugs for the rest of our lives?

I haven't decided yet whether to tell my GP, but it will be interesting to see what my cholesterol levels are next time around. As I mentioned, I was 2.4 last year, but I did stop them for several weeks as we tried to pinpoint some side effects I was having from all the drugs I was on. My subsequent reading was 3.7. I went back on the statins,despite still being below the 'recommended' 4.0 and in spite of the fact that I have no history of heart disease and statins are shown to have NO value in increasing lifespan with no history. Last week I was 3.2 - a level I now consider potentially dangerous rather than 'the best they've ever seen'!

So - the next thing I need to do is get my blood pressure under control so that I can stop that pill! Then there will only be aspirin remaining...down from 11 different drugs after diagnosis, not including insulin (don't plan on stopping that!)

p.s. I have read elsewhere that Dr Kendrick's explanation of the chemistry of saturated fat is flawed. I'm prepared to accept that everything he says is not gospel by any means, but the underlying message is extremely persuasive.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Hi Dodger, I think this is the key point I took away from the book - cholesterol levels have not been proven beyond doubt to contribute to heart disease and statins only appear to be of benefit in a way that is not related to their cholesterol-lowering properties!
> 
> I'm beginning to view the medical establishment in much the same way that I view greedy bankers, I'm afraid.  Doctors get paid for keeping patients' cholesterol levels low (via statins), researchers get paid for interpreting results of trials (designed by pharma giants) in a way that will increase the market for drugs, pharma giants just get paid - full stop! How can it be that we are now being made to believe that everyone over 50 should be on largely unproven drugs for the rest of our lives?
> 
> ...



Dear Northerner,

Good on you mate! The only drug I take is Valsartan for BP and ofcourse Asprin - like you I will never stop that! I may have to start insulin soon, since my "controlled" carb diet is really becoming "low" now. I think after 15 years my beta-cell function is just about shot.

Regards   Dodger

PS Kendrick oversimplified the chemistry of fats but there is much more persuasive info' out there that says saturated fat is not evil


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

C*5_Dodger said:


> Dear Northerner,
> 
> Good on you mate! The only drug I take is Valsartan for BP and ofcourse Asprin - like you I will never stop that! I may have to start insulin soon, since my "controlled" carb diet is really becoming "low" now. I think after 15 years my beta-cell function is just about shot.
> 
> ...



Dodger, I know you are committed to your controlled carb diet, but I did read recently that extremely low carb diets can adversely affect thyroid function - but you have probably already researched that, no doubt!


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Dodger, I know you are committed to your controlled carb diet, but I did read recently that extremely low carb diets can adversely affect thyroid function - but you have probably already researched that, no doubt!



Yup, I read about the thyroid thing but, as you are aware, things are never what they seem in the nutrition game.

Regards   Dodger


----------



## Sue P (Oct 10, 2009)

Like you, I've never been happy with the idea that I should take an unproven drug just because my GP gets paid more if I do. I was prescribed them a few months back when my cholesterol was 5.2. My diet hadn't been great, so I joined slimming world, cut back more on carbs and sugar (as I know I already should have done). My glucose levels improved so much I began to think my monitor was broken as i kept getting readings of 5.6 - better than I had done for years. Next month I get my cholesterol tested again and am hoping this is also a lot better. If not, no doubt he will try to persuade me but I know so many people who have had problems that I really do not want to take them.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Sue P said:


> Like you, I've never been happy with the idea that I should take an unproven drug just because my GP gets paid more if I do. I was prescribed them a few months back when my cholesterol was 5.2. My diet hadn't been great, so I joined slimming world, cut back more on carbs and sugar (as I know I already should have done). My glucose levels improved so much I began to think my monitor was broken as i kept getting readings of 5.6 - better than I had done for years. Next month I get my cholesterol tested again and am hoping this is also a lot better. If not, no doubt he will try to persuade me but I know so many people who have had problems that I really do not want to take them.



I think because I've never really been near doctors until developing diabetes, I always assumed they know best on these things. I think that the numerous stories about their lack of knowledge about diabetes has demolished that myth, and now I question things - particularly if they appear to be driven in some part by financial incentive.

Well done on all your efforts Sue, I hope that you are well rewarded for them with some excellent results that match your superb BG levels!


----------



## Peter C (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Do you take statins? I've been on them since diagnosis and always been uneasy about taking drugs that interfere in what is a pretty significant way with my body chemistry. Last night I decided to stop taking them, after reading 'The Great Cholesterol Con' - see my review at http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4114
> 
> 
> > Hi there Northerner,
> ...


----------



## NiVZ (Oct 10, 2009)

Hi all,

Reading your replies with interest.  I've recently been put on Thyroxine (2 tablets every morning) which I'm ok with.  My Thyroid was underactive and latest test shows that tablets are working.

However, my total cholesterol was slightly elevated at 5.2 and I've got 6 months to get it down otherwise they want to start me on statins.  I've read there are a number of side effects with statins as well as the two sides of the argument highlighted in this thread.

I'm really determined not to add another pill to my medication needs and I've cut out all my between meal snacks (which were mainly biscuits).  I've switched to Olive Oil based spreads, cut out animal fats, and am going to start eating more oily fish.  Also read recently that Benecol is good for lowering cholesterol so I might investigate this as well.

NiVZ


----------



## bev (Oct 10, 2009)

Hmm... bit worried now. My cardiologist told me that my cholestrol was 4.5 and this is ok. Are you saying that i should be under 4? Alex was 3.2 on diagnosis and he is 11. Bev


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

bev said:


> Hmm... bit worried now. My cardiologist told me that my cholestrol was 4.5 and this is ok. Are you saying that i should be under 4? Alex was 3.2 on diagnosis and he is 11. Bev



No bev, dont't worry - 4.0 is the recommendation for diabetics. 4.5 is pretty much perfect fr you!  Can't comment on Alex, as children may be different.


----------



## bev (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> No bev, dont't worry - 4.0 is the recommendation for diabetics. 4.5 is pretty much perfect fr you!  Can't comment on Alex, as children may be different.



Phew - thanks Northerner! Why does it have to be lower for diabetics?Bev


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

bev said:


> Phew - thanks Northerner! Why does it have to be lower for diabetics?Bev



They think that we have this additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease, so try to keep the other 'risk' factors tighter than for non-diabetics. It's the same with blood pressure, they like that to be lower too.


----------



## bev (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> They think that we have this additional risk factor for cardiovascular disease, so try to keep the other 'risk' factors tighter than for non-diabetics. It's the same with blood pressure, they like that to be lower too.



It never rains but it pours......

Have you tried the spibelt yet?Bev


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Peter C said:


> Northerner said:
> 
> 
> > Do you take statins? I've been on them since diagnosis and always been uneasy about taking drugs that interfere in what is a pretty significant way with my body chemistry. Last night I decided to stop taking them, after reading 'The Great Cholesterol Con' - see my review at http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4114
> ...



The book is more about the misrepresentation of trial statistics and the invention of ad=hoc hypotheses to explain away conficts within the 'expected' results. At one point he discusses 'teleoanalysis' which is a method by which the researchers decide what *would* happen if a certain trial was done - without actually doing the trial!


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

bev said:


> It never rains but it pours......
> 
> Have you tried the spibelt yet?Bev



Going to try it tomorrow! Today was a rest day and yesterday Id already been for my run when it arrived! Will report back!


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

NiVZ said:


> ...However, my total cholesterol was slightly elevated at 5.2 and I've got 6 months to get it down otherwise they want to start me on statins.  I've read there are a number of side effects with statins as well as the two sides of the argument highlighted in this thread.
> 
> I'm really determined not to add another pill to my medication needs and I've cut out all my between meal snacks (which were mainly biscuits).  I've switched to Olive Oil based spreads, cut out animal fats, and am going to start eating more oily fish.  Also read recently that Benecol is good for lowering cholesterol so I might investigate this as well.
> 
> NiVZ



Hi Nivz, I must admit that, after what I've read lately 5.2 would look perfectly fine to me. It's worth reading the book by Robert Povey for good advice about how to keep cholesterol at healthy levels, and the Kendrick book for the lowdown on statins. I have also read quite a bit on the web about responses to Kendrick's book - there are flaws, but the underlying message leaves me very cynical about the reasons fr prescribing statins.

Hopefully, it won't be an issue for you as you may not be prescribed them!


----------



## Peter C (Oct 10, 2009)

bev said:


> Phew - thanks Northerner! Why does it have to be lower for diabetics?Bev



Because Diabetics, due to the biochemistry of the condition, suffer from Diabetic Dyslipidemia ( elevated Total Cholesterol, elevated LDL, depressed HDL). So we are at particular risk of atherothrombotic vascular disease ( horrible arteries and dickie tickers). For each 1% reduction in LDL gives a 2% fall in cardiovascular events and each 1% rise in HDL produces a 3% fall. James H. O'Keefe ( a leading cardiologist from the Midwest and big on lipids - anyone interested in this subject should read O'Keefe before Kendrick !) says "Optimization of the Lipid profile is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INTERVENTION for improving cardiovascular prognosis in Type 2 diabetes".
O'Keefe, Diabetes Essentials.
Basically diabetics are almost as bad at handling cholesterol as we are handling glucose. If the Total Chols rise you can bet with us its the bad stuff ( LDl and VLDL) that's causing the rise not the good stuff. So the rules are set more stringent targets for dmers than "civilians", get the LDL down ( optimal range 50-70 mg dl ) and the HDL up. HOW ? Diet and exercise of course and by Statins easiest of all - they always work.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Peter C said:


> Because Diabetics, due to the biochemistry of the condition, suffer from Diabetic Dyslipidemia ( elevated Total Cholesterol, elevated LDL, depressed HDL). So we are at particular risk of atherothrombotic vascular disease ( horrible arteries and dickie tickers). For each 1% reduction in LDL gives a 2% fall in cardiovascular events and each 1% rise in HDL produces a 3% fall. James H. O'Keefe ( a leading cardiologist from the Midwest and big on lipids - anyone interested in this subject should read O'Keefe before Kendrick !) says "Optimization of the Lipid profile is the SINGLE MOST IMPORTANT INTERVENTION for improving cardiovascular prognosis in Type 2 diabetes".
> O'Keefe, Diabetes Essentials.
> Basically diabetics are almost as bad at handling cholesterol as we are handling glucose. If the Total Chols rise you can bet with us its the bad stuff ( LDl and VLDL) that's causing the rise not the good stuff. So the rules are set more stringent targets for dmers than "civilians", get the LDL down ( optimal range 50-70 mg dl ) and the HDL up. HOW ? Diet and exercise of course and by Statins easiest of all - they always work.



I am Type 1 though Peter, and don't have insulin resistance which I understand is the problem causing what you describe. When you say 1% rise or fall do you mean 1 mmol/l?


----------



## katie (Oct 10, 2009)

Glad to hear you ditched the statins northe!  Your total cholesterol was sounding VERY low and I was wondering why they kept you on them, as it seemed unnecessary.


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

I am still so confused about all this...i regard myself as quite intelligent but biology and chemistry not my strong points...I took Physics...so..please translate for me if you can my latest Lipids...
Total   6.5
LDL 3.7
HDL 1.1
TRIG 3.8

..North if you had these readings what changes would you make...or would you just write a poem ??


----------



## katie (Oct 10, 2009)

am64 said:


> I am still so confused about all this...i regard myself as quite intelligent but biology and chemistry not my strong points...I took Physics...so..please translate for me if you can my latest Lipids...
> Total   6.5
> LDL 3.7
> HDL 1.1
> ...



I'm no expert am but...  

I think your LDL cholesterol and trigs seem a bit high and your HDL is low.  Ideally you want a higher HDL and try to lower the others.  So cut down on bad fats and try to eat more oily fish.

*awaits a more scientific, clever person to reply*


----------



## Peter C (Oct 10, 2009)

Northerner said:


> I am Type 1 though Peter, and don't have insulin resistance which I understand is the problem causing what you describe. When you say 1% rise or fall do you mean 1 mmol/l?



Hello Northerner,

You are not off the hook with Lipids because you are T1 though ...
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733492

And this Presentation emphasises that even T1s with good control have qualitative issues with lipids 
http://www.uchsc.edu/misc/diabetes/slides/keystone05/Eckel.ppt#379,10,Slide 10


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

katie said:


> I'm no expert am but...
> 
> I think your LDL cholesterol and trigs seem a bit high and your HDL is low.  Ideally you want a higher HDL and try to lower the others.  So cut down on bad fats and try to eat more oily fish.
> 
> *awaits a more scientific, clever person to reply*



nursey told me to worry about trigs not others...but im not surprised as had been eating crap cos feeling crap for a few months...going through bit of that last week but laid off the really bad stuff...so learning...slowly
thanks X


----------



## katie (Oct 10, 2009)

am64 said:


> nursey told me to worry about trigs not others...but im not surprised as had been eating crap cos feeling crap for a few months...going through bit of that last week but laid off the really bad stuff...so learning...slowly
> thanks X



oh im totally with you there, I have been eating crap for months too for the same reasons and I still slip into the comfort eating alot.  We can only try our best to change habbits   I might start trying to eat oily fish actually, im not a fan though


----------



## Northerner (Oct 10, 2009)

Peter C said:


> Hello Northerner,
> 
> You are not off the hook with Lipids because you are T1 though ...
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19733492
> ...



Thanks for the links Peter, much appreciated. I think my main concern really is that, by taking statins my total cholesterol has dipped to 2.4 in the past and is currently 3.2. I don't know the split, because the consultant seemed reluctant to tell me for some reason, just said my HSL was higher than LDL.

 I think that this is too low, and that I am capable of maintaining a healthy level (whether that be 4 or 5) without the potential risk posed by statins. They only seem to offer a slight risk reduction in one area for an unknown risk in another, so it's a trade off for me.


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

katie said:


> oh im totally with you there, I have been eating crap for months too for the same reasons and I still slip into the comfort eating alot.  We can only try our best to change habbits   I might start trying to eat oily fish actually, im not a fan though



i found out recently that walnuts...which are in abundance at mo around here also have the omega 3....but give me a nice kipper XXX


----------



## katie (Oct 10, 2009)

am64 said:


> i found out recently that walnuts...which are in abundance at mo around here also have the omega 3....but give me a nice kipper XXX



nuts are more my thing! problem is i can't eat a few at a time, have to eat the whole lot!


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 10, 2009)

Kippers, oooh, I haven't had one of them in years. I'm going on a kipper hunt in the morning.


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

katie said:


> nuts are more my thing! problem is i can't eat a few at a time, have to eat the whole lot!


same xxx but better than pile of chips and mayo!!


----------



## am64 (Oct 10, 2009)

AlisonM said:


> Kippers, oooh, I haven't had one of them in years. I'm going on a kipper hunt in the morning.



should get good ones up their alison..any of the smoked stuff


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 10, 2009)

am64 said:


> same xxx but better than pile of chips and mayo!!


I did that to my chips the other day and my brother nearly fainted. He reckons I came home just in time. We're apparently supposed to use brown sauce up here.


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 11, 2009)

Cripes Northener....you have really set the cat amongst the pigeons in my house. My partner has great medical knowledge, when I opened dialog with her on this........I got chapter and verse as to why I should be on Statins. I quoted you!!!!!, also printed this out for her

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm

An interesting read, without doubt. I am just as confused now, as I was this time yesterday.....so I'm giving myself over to nature


----------



## Northerner (Oct 11, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> Cripes Northener....you have really set the cat amongst the pigeons in my house. My partner has great medical knowledge, when I opened dialog with her on this........I got chapter and verse as to why I should be on Statins. I quoted you!!!!!, also printed this out for her
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm
> 
> An interesting read, without doubt. I am just as confused now, as I was this time yesterday.....so I'm giving myself over to nature



Thanks for the link Dave, it's an excellent synopsis of the book and you can probably appreciate that the extra detail in the book makes the arguments even more compelling.

I'm certainly not suggesting everyone should abandon their statins, but I do think that it's necessary to have an informed opinion on the matter - just as it is with diabetes care. Sorry if I caused dissent in the ranks! It may be that, for you, you are better off taking statins than not. 

My own personal position is that my cholesterol level was not high to start with, studies suggest that having a LOW level will lead to me dying younger of something else, and there are as yet unknown (and some serious _*known*_) side-effects of statins. Add to that the purely statistical possibility that I might not die of a heart attack until a couple of months later in my life by taking statins and I'd rather take my chances.


----------



## Copepod (Oct 11, 2009)

Statistics about survival (a branch of epidemiology) don't say anything about how long you as an individual will survive, just how a population of people of your age, sex and medical history will survive. So, the "couple of months" is an average, which includes some who die earlier, some who live for years longer etc, not that each person will live exactly a few months longer without a heart attack on statins than without. It's so difficult to account for confounding factors such as physical activity, mental attitude, social situation etc, that only very crude measures are used - often men living alone do worse than those living with partners, for example, but that fails to allow for those unhappily living together, for example.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 11, 2009)

Copepod said:


> Statistics about survival (a branch of epidemiology) don't say anything about how long you as an individual will survive, just how a population of people of your age, sex and medical history will survive. So, the "couple of months" is an average, which includes some who die earlier, some who live for years longer etc, not that each person will live exactly a few months longer without a heart attack on statins than without. It's so difficult to account for confounding factors such as physical activity, mental attitude, social situation etc, that only very crude measures are used - often men living alone do worse than those living with partners, for example, but that fails to allow for those unhappily living together, for example.



Indeed. And as Kendrick makes the point in his book, the results of a lot of these studies are being applied to people who have completely different factors in their lives - not least if you live in a different country! For example, the Framingham study really only relates to people who live in Framingham - if the conclusions were applied to the French then the projections are entirely misleading. 

What, for example, is considered too low a cholesterol level? The Japanese have much lower levels than Westerners and much lower incidence of heart disease - but a much higher rate of stroke! In my own particular case there didn't seem to be any alarm whatsoever that my levels were so low, with the clear intention of driving them even lower if possible - i.e. my dose of statins wasn't reduced at all.


----------



## Copepod (Oct 11, 2009)

I'd be happy to extrapolate findings from Framingham Heart Study to other people born around 1948 in Massachusetts, and New England, USA, but links get more tenuous the further away you travel in time and space - for example, mothers of mainland Europeans born in 1948 had all lived through the Second World War, which was a very different experience in Europe than USA. When racial groups are considered, things get even more complicated - the genetic background that helped you to survive in the Indian subcontinent or West Africa or Caribbean in past generations may be very different to what helps you to survive in modern western societies - resistance to malaria, variable food supplies etc were more important, but there's no malaria in Europe now (it was present in fen areas of England into 17th century and in Sardinia until 1950, for example) and famines don't affect food supplies in Europe. Let's not forget about health issues in developing countries, where impregnated bednets can prevent many insect borne diseases and safe water supplies and oral rehydration solutions (made from sugar / fizzy drinks / salt / special measuring spoons - see http://www.talcuk.org/accessories/sugar-and-salt-measures.htm ) can save many lives.


----------



## wallycorker (Oct 11, 2009)

I've been on simvastatin for nearly nine years - first 10mg then 20mg and now 40mg. Over that period of time my Total Cholesterol has dropped from always being in the 7s to just over 4 - but over the last twelve months through dietary changes it has dropped yet further to 3.1.

Other things have changed such as LDL (5.2 down to 1.5) and Triglycerides (3.3  at it's highest downto 1.18) have all dropped similarly.

The only one that never changes much is HDL that always seems to be between 1.0 and 1.3 no matter what I do. Perhaps because I do very little exercise?

I've never noticed any side effects or problems through taking the tablets but I do know people who have had problems. A close friend had to be taken off them double quick because they were causing problems to her liver.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 11, 2009)

Hi John, have they ever suggested lowering your dose due to your levels getting low? This is one thing that surprises me, but thre is so much hype around about lowering cholesterol that there seems to be virtually no information on how low to sensibly go!


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 11, 2009)

wallycorker said:


> I've been on simvastatin for nearly nine years - first 10mg then 20mg and now 40mg. Over that period of time my Total Cholesterol has dropped from always being in the 7s to just over 4 - but over the last twelve months through dietary changes it has dropped yet further to 3.1.
> 
> Other things have changed such as LDL (5.2 down to 1.5) and Triglycerides (3.3  at it's highest downto 1.18) have all dropped similarly.
> 
> ...



Dear Whally,

I guess you are lucky - it isn't everyone who suffer side effects from taking statins. BTW your low level of Triglycerides is more to do with your diet rather than statins e.g. mine is 0.9mmol/L. Also have you noted VBH has kicked them into touch?

Regards  Dodger


----------



## williammcd (Oct 11, 2009)

i was on simvastatin but got taken off them after they caused all sorts of bowel troubles left me with IBS


----------



## wallycorker (Oct 11, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Hi John, have they ever suggested lowering your dose due to your levels getting low? This is one thing that surprises me, but thre is so much hype around about lowering cholesterol that there seems to be virtually no information on how low to sensibly go!


Not yet - my GP showed no interest to change anything while it was just over 4. At my last review he reduced one of my two blood pressure medications. He never commented on reducing the simvastatin or my metformin.

I must say, I'm happy to have the low numbers after having had high ones and I'll leave it in my GP's hands at least for the time being.

Everything seems to be going crazily downwards - I was checking my blood pressure readings this afternoon and getting numbers of 90/50 ish.


----------



## Peter C (Oct 11, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> Cripes Northener....you have really set the cat amongst the pigeons in my house. My partner has great medical knowledge, when I opened dialog with her on this........I got chapter and verse as to why I should be on Statins. I quoted you!!!!!, also printed this out for her
> 
> http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm
> 
> An interesting read, without doubt. I am just as confused now, as I was this time yesterday.....so I'm giving myself over to nature



Hi Dave,
the link you gave is so full of errors and misconceptions that it is difficult to know where to start with it.
Narrowed arteries and atherosclerotic plaques are full of cholesterol so medical research tells us, deposited their by LDL. If, as kendrick maintains, cholesterol is not the culprit, not the substnce in athero plaques, WHAT IS ?
What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.


----------



## wallycorker (Oct 11, 2009)

C*5_Dodger said:


> Dear Whally,
> 
> I guess you are lucky - it isn't everyone who suffer side effects from taking statins. BTW your low level of Triglycerides is more to do with your diet rather than statins e.g. mine is 0.9mmol/L. Also have you noted VBH has kicked them into touch?
> 
> Regards  Dodger


Dodger - Yes - I'm aware that I got a big improvement in readings over the last twelve months through changing my diet - that effect was TC 4.2 to 3.1; LDL 2.0 to 1.5; TG 2.56 to 1.18; HDL 1.0 to 1.1; TC/HDL 4.2 to 2.8.

Creatinine also went down to my lowest on record 87 (usually round about 100 previously) but I don't understand what that is about - something to do with kidney or liver I think.

Don't know what you mean about the last sentence.


----------



## Jean (Oct 12, 2009)

*Cholesterol the culprit?*

What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.[/QUOTE]

A distinction has to be made between cholesterol as a/the cause of narrowing arteries and cholesterol as a presence at the _scene of the crime_.

See http://www.fsponline-recommends.co....D=2147066075&u=11110812&g=0&o=90640&l=172856&


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 12, 2009)

Peter C said:


> Hi Dave,
> *the link you gave is so full of errors and misconceptions that it is difficult to know where to start with it.*Narrowed arteries and atherosclerotic plaques are full of cholesterol so medical research tells us, deposited their by LDL. If, as kendrick maintains, cholesterol is not the culprit, not the substnce in athero plaques, WHAT IS ?
> What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.



Peter.....without this thread degenerating into an argument, rather than debate. You have posted three times on this thread, all three aimed at  dissing Kendrick, then tell us that we should believe without fail, the wise words of  James H. O'Keefe . Surely, a man such as Kendrick should be given a platform. FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs. 

You claim the link is full of *'errors and misconceptions'*.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> Peter.....without this thread degenerating into an argument, rather than debate. You have posted three times on this thread, all three aimed at  dissing Kendrick, then tell us that we should believe without fail, the wise words of  James H. O'Keefe . Surely, a man such as Kendrick should be given a platform. FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs.
> 
> You claim the link is full of *'errors and misconceptions'*.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.



I was just about to ask the same thing Dave. Is there a similar publication in existence which debunks Kendrick's claims? I'm not a scientist, so wouldn't make any claims for the accuracy of Kendrick's scientific explanations of the mechanisms of atherosclerosis. I do, however, understand simple logic, and his arguments regarding the reporting of statistical data from the myriad trials do seem valid to me in that they do not support an overwhelming case in favour of the cholesterol hypothesis, or the need for the majority of the population to be on statins.

Regarding the Heart Protection study, this gives a very good analysis of how taking statins may help you avoid an 'event'. I fall into the second group, those not having had a heart attack, so am one of the three yellow faces. I'd rather take my chances along with the other 97! As the webpage says, in order to be sure that the three are 'saved', all 100 have to be given the statin (statistics-talk!):

http://www.nntonline.net/ebm/newsletter/2003/06/diabetes_and_statins.asp


----------



## Peter C (Oct 12, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> FWIW, I found some good common sense, in his words, and the point being, why blindly follow the advice of a GP, these guys get paid to have you take certain drugs.
> 
> You claim the link is full of *'errors and misconceptions'*.....then please educate us all, as to why!!!!.



Hello Dave,

No GPs are not paid to give you certain drugs, they are paid to get lipids into normal ranges because that is so important ! The simplest and most effective way for most people is via medication as well as diet/exercise. It is actually a shame that Gps have to be incentivised to do the right thing.

Where do we start with thew rrors in the link you posted ? Well start here...
"In reality, cracks in the hypothesis appeared right from the very start. The first of these was the stark observation that cholesterol in the diet has no effect on cholesterol levels in the bloodstream."
Really "cholesterol in the diet" has no effect on the levels on the bloodstream ???  So why do you think most Lipid panels are taken in a fasting state ? Because, contrary to what Kendrick states, it has been known since the 1930s that chols will rise in the bloodstream after a meal. In fact chols and the Lipids transporting them around the blood stream rise after a meal and peak at 3 hours , returning to "normal" at 5 hours. 
On top of that between 20 and 30% of people are Hyper-responders to Dietary Cholesterol - they don't just respond in the normal way to deitary chols, their lipids whoosh up after a meal.
It is in this state of Postprandial Hyperlipidemia where most damage is done, especially in diabetics where Postprandial Hyperlipidemia entwines with and exacerbates Postprandial Hyperglycemia.

And the basic question I ask of Kendrick remains - if it isn't cholesterol in the atheromas and plaques - WHAT IS IT ????


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 12, 2009)

[Don't know what you mean about the last sentence.[/QUOTE]

Dear Whally,

Have a look at a post on *this* forum from VBH. I just checked the other one and that says 40mg Simvastatin!

Regards   Dodger


----------



## Peter C (Oct 12, 2009)

Jean said:


> What, so far unknown substance, is the thing that is narrowing arteries and forming plaques ????????? What is it if it is not cholesterol.



A distinction has to be made between cholesterol as a/the cause of narrowing arteries and cholesterol as a presence at the _scene of the crime_[/QUOTE]

It was the Vicar wot done it in the Library with the lead piping.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

Following on from my earlier post about the HPS, it didn't seem to matter what the cholesterol levels of the diabetics in the study was, so why is it important that it be driven ever further down? Surely this means that it's not the statins' actions on cholesterol that is important, but something else? If my level of 4.0 was 'good' where's the benefit in it being 2.4? I don't see how levels of cholesterol can appear to be irrelevant and yet so important at the same time.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 12, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Following on from my earlier post about the HPS, it didn't seem to matter what the cholesterol levels of the diabetics in the study was, so why is it important that it be driven ever further down? Surely this means that it's not the statins' actions on cholesterol that is important, but something else? If my level of 4.0 was 'good' where's the benefit in it being 2.4? I don't see how levels of cholesterol can appear to be irrelevant and yet so important at the same time.



Dear Northerner,

I agree with your reasoning about the level not being relevent. Your body sets the level it needs to be at. If you eat cholesterol, ofcourse your level rises but then the body downregulates its production so that there is little increase. Ater all 80% (approx) of the cholesterol in the body is manufactured there. There is one statin manufacturer (Astra Zenica) who has tested its latest (Crestor) drug not on cholesterol levels but on elevated c reactive protein (Statins are powerful anti-inflamatories). They are, I believe, starting to think that heart disease is caused by inflammation - so does Kendrick - sort of!

Regards  Dpdger


----------



## Ellowyne (Oct 12, 2009)

*Confused!*

My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

Ellowyne said:


> My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along



Hi Ellowynne, I'm not surprised you are confused! I personally would prefer the more cautious approach taken by your GP. My own GP was of a similar opinion and made me take regular liver tests. I think the thinking is that an adverse side-effect of the statins is on the liver but you are not necessarily going to suffer that side-effect so it may not be an issue for you. 

Perhaps you can discuss with your GP alternative approaches you might take to reduce your cholesterol level and give you some extra time to try this approach before putting you on the statins?


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 12, 2009)

Ellowyne said:


> My Diabetes it still not under control as yet. I am now on Glictazide tablets, Only started a few days ago and on low dose. The thing is the Diabetic Consultant also wants me to start Statins as my cholestrial is 5.9. However, my GP is not really comfortable with me starting statins as my liver enzymes run quite high, this is mostly due to my Gall Bladder that often becomes inflammed. My Gp said she would do as the Diabetic Dr requested but that she was not happy and was concerned about the effects it may have on my liver.....Now, I am just so confused? My Gp says my cholestrial is'nt greatly high and the D'consultant says it is and needs Statins?...And as well as this, I am now so worried that my liver enzymes will increase. I just really get so annoyed when I am given confusing information. My Diabetic treatment so far has been nothing short of appalling with diffrent advise from diffrent health advises all along



Dear Ellowyne,

I'm so sorry that all is not well with you - this thread must be causing you even more anguish! However, please note that this thread was started by Northerner, who has arrived at a decision to stop taking statins *based largely upon his own research*. We cannot offer advice, but what I can say is *I would not take statins or gliclazide - just my opinion*. The reasons for the former are in the above posts the reason I would not take gliclazide is because the mechanism of action is to force the already overworked pancreas to produce even more insulin. This, in my opinion, means that it burns out in about three years. The upshot being, the next step is insulin. Now I have nothing against insulin, it is, in my opinion, the only drug that works in the long term. Its just that I have chosen to put this off for as long as possible. So, Ellowyne, read this thread, decide what you want to do and tell your medics what you want to do - afterall its you who are in charge of your diabetes.

Warmest Regards   Dodger

PS The figures you see below really are as a result of my diet/lifestyle


----------



## kojack (Oct 12, 2009)

I don't see how this thread fits in as a thread in a diabetics' support group.

This quoting from various tomes and opinions being thrust in from non medically qualified members on statins is IMHO in total conflict with the premise on which this forum was formed.

I would almost suggest that there are many posting in this thread who could save the NHS a lot of money by totally disregarding their GP/Consultant's advice and filling the pockets of the authors of the quoted books.


----------



## katie (Oct 12, 2009)

kojack said:


> I don't see how this thread fits in as a thread in a diabetics' support group.
> 
> This quoting from various tomes and opinions being thrust in from non medically qualified members on statins is IMHO in total conflict with the premise on which this forum was formed.
> 
> I would almost suggest that there are many posting in this thread who could save the NHS a lot of money by totally disregarding their GP/Consultant's advice and filling the pockets of the authors of the quoted books.



From what ive read of this thread people have been quoting what they have read from qualified doctors (eg. Dr Malcolm Kendrick, "a medical doctor who has spent many years researching the causes of heart disease.").  Maybe you have the perfect GP who tells you exactly the right things you should do and prescribes you the perfect medicines that he/she knows for a fact will help you best they can, but mine isn't the perfect GP and I'm yet to find one.  You can't always take what your GP says as gospel and sometimes need to do your own research to make up your own mind.

Northerner started this thread to tell people that from his research he has decided to stop taking statins, he was not telling other people to stop taking theirs, but merely read up about the drug.  Bearing in mind Northerner's cholesterol is low, I don't think his GP is going to suggest he should stay on them to make it lower? We shall see.


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 12, 2009)

Point 1: I support Northerner totally in his decision. He's obviously done the research and made an informed decision for himself based on his own needs, he's not trying to tell anyone else what to do. 

Point 2: GP's aren't all knowing, indeed they're frequently as much in the dark as we are and can approach treatment with a "let's try this, it may work" spirit. This has been my experience with them over the years, so that I do not take any doctor's advice as gospel, but do my own research as well and challenge them if I come to a different conclusion. It's *my* body, *my* health and *my* life, which is why I will continue taking the statins in conjunction with a low fat, low carb, low sugar diet. My cholesterol readings were sky high at diagnosis and folk on both sides of my family have had strokes and heart disease in the past. I'm at high risk myself, that makes it worth the risk as far as I'm concerned. If my cholesterol comes down to acceptable levels, I will reconsider. 

Point 3: This thread has caused folk to think, it's started a vigorous debate which is a healthy thing. I believe it's worthwhile discussing this because it brings up points we all need to consider.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

kojack said:


> I don't see how this thread fits in as a thread in a diabetics' support group.
> 
> This quoting from various tomes and opinions being thrust in from non medically qualified members on statins is IMHO in total conflict with the premise on which this forum was formed.
> 
> I would almost suggest that there are many posting in this thread who could save the NHS a lot of money by totally disregarding their GP/Consultant's advice and filling the pockets of the authors of the quoted books.



Hi John, I'm sorry you don't think this is an appropriate topic, but I would respectfully disagree with you. There have been several threads in the past on the same topic, and this is because it is very much a part of the medication automatically assigned to many people once they have been diagnosed with diabetes. I have similar concerns (as do many others) about the use of therapeutic doses of aspirin.

If I wasn't diabetic there would be no question of me being prescribed statins, so I was anxious to learn all I could about the arguments both for and against taking them. It is not clear-cut - in fact an earlier post in this thread (Ellowynne's) reveals how contrary the advice can be from medical professionals - if they can't agree, then who do we know who to place our trust in? We can only learn what we can and make a personal decision based on our interpretation of the evidence, and the relative risks.

I would also add that I have been helped in coming to my decision by the input from others sharing their experiences - both for and against - and the extra links to information they have supplied. If it's OK to discuss metformin and gliclazide, why not statins?


----------



## katie (Oct 12, 2009)

Why should ANY topic be excluded?  As long as it's not someone attempting to offend people we should be able to discuss whatever we want, it is a message board after all.


----------



## Steff (Oct 12, 2009)

A forum is a place, situation, or group in which people exchange ideas and discuss issues, especially important public issue.I just wanted to look the meaning up i thought in here we could discuss whatever topic we wanted i dont see why statins should be excluded from that,as stated previously northener started this thread talking of his own personal experience with statins.


----------



## Bill Wilson (Oct 12, 2009)

Hi Northener,

I agree completely.  I have been badly affected having taken a statin for 6 months.  I understand that my condition is irreversible.
Please also read:
                              The Statin Damage Crisis
                                          by
                               Dr. Duanne Graveline MD
 This book, especially the last two chapters (17 & 18) will really open your eyes to the dangers.

Bill Wilson


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 12, 2009)

Bill Wilson said:


> Hi Northener,
> 
> I agree completely.  I have been badly affected having taken a statin for 6 months.  I understand that my condition is irreversible.
> Please also read:
> ...



Thanks Bill....................well worth a read folks!!!, by the good Doctor Graveline MD.


http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Statin-Drugs-Side-Effects.html


and this

http://medicationsense.com/articles/april_june_04/graveline.html

More!!!!

http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/lipitor.html


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 12, 2009)

The Statin Damage Crisis
by Duane Graveline, M.D., Dr. Malcolm Kendrick (Introduction by) 

About this title: The purpose in the choice of the title The Statin Damage Crisis is to draw attention to the thousands of statin damaged people who have written to Dr Graveline about their *disabling neuropathies, myopathies and a variety of neurodegenerative conditions such as ALS and Parkinsonism associated with statin use.* Although much of the book's 

The point being folks.........there will always be two sides to an argument, it depends which one you believe........me, I vote Tory, and I don't belive in God...not every one on here will share those views.


----------



## katie (Oct 12, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> The point being folks.........there will always be two sides to an argument, it depends which one you believe........me, I vote Tory, and I don't belive in God...not every one on here will share those views.



eew tory??


----------



## Jean (Oct 12, 2009)

*This message board is meant to be helpful!*

It was the Vicar wot done it in the Library with the lead piping.[/QUOTE]

This comment is not in the least helpful.

It is easy to be facetious - much, much easier than commenting on the link I supplied.   

Some of us have had great difficulty coming to terms with a diagnosis of diabetes and all its consequences.  We have been most appreciative of the help we have received from this message board.   We can well do without facetious observations.

Surely PeterC cannot be running away from the possibility that oxidation and inflammation are more likely to be the cause of heart disease than cholesterol?

I re-iterate - the link is http://www.fsponline-recommends.co....D=2147066075&u=11110812&g=0&o=90640&l=172856& - and perhaps PeterC will have the good grace to take it seriously.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

Thanks for the link Jean!


----------



## bev (Oct 12, 2009)

As a non-diabetic i have found this thread very informative as i have recently been seeing a cardiologist -luckily i dont seem to have a problem - but i would like to know for future reference as Alex is 11 and i am certain this subject will no doubt surface one day for him - and in my opinion - the more knowledge you have about a subject - the more able you are to make an informed decision.

I dont know why its a problem to share opinions and knowledge about a subject that does actually affect many on here. It would be a terrible shame if people felt they couldnt post for fear of being told that their subject matter was irrelevant.

Northerner - you have started a debate about a subject that is important to many of us - so i say WELL DONE!Bev


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 12, 2009)

bev said:


> As a non-diabetic i have found this thread very informative as i have recently been seeing a cardiologist -luckily i dont seem to have a problem - but i would like to know for future reference as Alex is 11 and i am certain this subject will no doubt surface one day for him - and in my opinion - the more knowledge you have about a subject - the more able you are to make an informed decision.
> 
> I dont know why its a problem to share opinions and knowledge about a subject that does actually affect many on here. It would be a terrible shame if people felt they couldnt post for fear of being told that their subject matter was irrelevant.
> 
> *Northerner - you have started a debate about a subject that is important to many of us - so i say WELL DONE!*Bev



Yeh............and cost me a relationship...





Kidding


----------



## Carina1962 (Oct 12, 2009)

*high cholesterol and high blood glucose*

I was put on statins straight away as my cholesterol was 9.4 and it turns out that i may also be diabetic (i will know my results this Friday).  Does high cholesterol go hand in hand with diabetes?  i've had high cholesterol for several years and have not taken statins in the hope that i could reduce it myself through lifestyle change but it turns out that my routine blood test a couple of weeks ago revealed both high cholesterol again and this time high blood glucose, does this mean that i could have prevented getting diabetes if i had treated my high choleterol say 5 years ago?


----------



## katie (Oct 12, 2009)

carina62 said:


> I was put on statins straight away as my cholesterol was 9.4 and it turns out that i may also be diabetic (i will know my results this Friday).  Does high cholesterol go hand in hand with diabetes?  i've had high cholesterol for several years and have not taken statins in the hope that i could reduce it myself through lifestyle change but it turns out that my routine blood test a couple of weeks ago revealed both high cholesterol again and this time high blood glucose, does this mean that i could have prevented getting diabetes if i had treated my high choleterol say 5 years ago?



Hi Carina.  No, Cholesterol does not cause diabetes as far as i'm aware...

Hope you saw the replies to your thread: http://www.diabetessupport.co.uk/boards/showthread.php?t=4128


----------



## Peter C (Oct 12, 2009)

Jean said:


> It was the Vicar wot done it in the Library with the lead piping.



This comment is not in the least helpful.

It is easy to be facetious - much, much easier than commenting on the link I supplied.   

Some of us have had great difficulty coming to terms with a diagnosis of diabetes and all its consequences.  We have been most appreciative of the help we have received from this message board.   We can well do without facetious observations.

Surely PeterC cannot be running away from the possibility that oxidation and inflammation are more likely to be the cause of heart disease than cholesterol?

I re-iterate - the link is http://www.fsponline-recommends.co....D=2147066075&u=11110812&g=0&o=90640&l=172856& - and perhaps PeterC will have the good grace to take it seriously.[/QUOTE]

Hi Jean, consider my wrist well and truly slapped for trying to inject a little humour.

But yes of course oxidation and inflamation are involved in heart disease - it is oxidation in particular that allows the LDL carrying cholesterol to become attached to the macrophages in the endothelium and artery walls causing the cholesterol to create narrowing of the arteries and plaques. Oxidation is just a turnkey it is the cholesterol wot does it.

As for your link I will endeavour to take it seriously but ...
1. Its an advert for a food supplement, CoQ10 and moreover a food supplement that has been found by meta analysis of research papers by the Mayo Clinic and harvard University to have no discernable effect on heart disease.
2. The link is quite hilarious and contradicts itself - it proclaims in the first papragraph that Enzyme CoQ10 " prevents heart attacks and strokes by stopping cholesterol blocking arteries." But then it goes on to cite Kendrick that Cholesterol is NOt involved in heart disease !!!! Does the left hand know what the right hand is doing?
3. It cites kendrick saying that cholesterol is not involved in cvd and then shows some nice diagrams on the right hand side of the page. Oh NO ! What's that white stuff narrowing arteries and causing plaques . why bless me it's that thingy called cholesterol. 

Take that advert seriously - its a joke !


----------



## Ellowyne (Oct 12, 2009)

*Lost Faith In medicines*



Northerner said:


> If I wasn't diabetic there would be no question of me being prescribed statins, so I was anxious to learn all I could about the arguments both for and against taking them. It is not clear-cut - in fact an earlier post in this thread (Ellowynne's) reveals how contrary the advice can be from medical professionals - if they can't agree, then who do we know who to place our trust in? We can only learn what we can and make a personal decision based on our interpretation of the evidence, and the relative risks.



Yes, I have to agree with you, Medical professionals 'do not' always know what is right for us. Over the past two years I have had a terrible time with, really what boils down to negligence with the lack of care I have received. Last year, I had severe pain in my back, long story, and was very quickly prescribed Fentanyl patches for the pain. Fentantyl patches are a very strong narcotic that one is supposed to be on for a maximum of 3 months. 
10 months later, 5 stone lighter and I was still on Fentantyl and I was dying.

The Fentantyl was of such a high dose in my body it was slowy killing me. I was encouraged to stay on it because 'I was losing weight!' I was not put on it for weight loss...it was for pain! I decided to ignore the Drs advice and get myself off the patches. After much severe withdrawels and a 3 night stay in hospital I am nearly 1 year Fentayl free. If I had listened to the 'so called' professionals, that beleived that all my side affects were 'in my head', I truly do not beleive I would be alive today. However, since Fentanyl I have had nothing but health problems which I believe is as a direct result of the Fentanyl patches....However, I can not prove this, I just know, I know how my body has been left and feels today. 

To be honest, I have 'No faith' in what any professional of the medical type tells me anymore. My Diabetic treatment is a complete hash and I am constantly being given contradicting advice. Both the Diabetic Dr and my GP have told me straight, that if I do not take any medication to lower my blood sugars that I will be dead, yes dead, within 10 years through diabetic complicated illness. 

And what is so bloody funny is that none of them can 'agree' how to treat me!!! ...well apart from all telling me how terrible it is that I will not try Metformin again, they are really pushy with the Metformin, but, as I told them, tried it and it made me ill...even the slow release ones!

So, appox 7 months on since being diagnosed and my BS runs at around 11 (HBA1C RESULTS) I have high cholestrial, liver is'nt great, Gall bladder problems, and a Pancreus that is not well enough to withstand Byatta injections(Sorry if I have name wrong)...and I have 10 years left unless I reduce my B'Sugars's!...all's good then 

To be honest I am past caring...I am confused and not one medical professional can give me a clear way forward with my treatment....Then, no offence intended, but I read through these posts and my mind just flips...what am I to do? I am just so scared and confused.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 12, 2009)

Hi Ellowynne, I'm very sorry to hear of the problems you have had. I know you feel let down by them all, but is there one who you trust the most - your GP perhaps? I got the impression that you felt pressured by your consultant but that your GP was more understanding. If so, try to work with them to find out what other therapies you can try if the metformin was unsuitable. If you can just get your levels under better control I think that you will start to feel more positive about the future. 

Book an appointment and try to set some, or maybe just one, priority that you can concentrate on and work towards. It sounds as though you are currently feeling overwhelmed by the number of things you are being told to do or change, and therefore feel unable to set your sights on any of them. Do let us know how things go.


----------



## Copepod (Oct 12, 2009)

I tend to think it's worth trying simple things first eg dietary change, increase exercise, reducing body weight etc to reduce blood cholesterol, blood pressure etc. Some areas do have exercise on prescription schemes, for example - reduced rates at gyms, but many schemes such as health walks are completely free anyway. I recently met a GP who lost a stone in weight over the past year, started walking and cycling more and ended up cycling from London to Paris on a fund raising trip - he was pleasantly surprised by the improvement in his blood pressure, bordy weight and general wellbeing, and it has influenced his recommendations to patients. Of course, sometimes drugs are essential, but not necessarily the first line of attack against a health problem.


----------



## HelenP (Oct 12, 2009)

carina62 said:


> I was put on statins straight away as my cholesterol was 9.4 and it turns out that i may also be diabetic (i will know my results this Friday).  Does high cholesterol go hand in hand with diabetes?



Sorry I don't know enough about all this to answer your question with any certainty, but MY experience was that at diagnosis my BG level was v high, ie 19.something, followed by 18.something a few days later, and despite being very overweight, my cholesterol level was pronounced 'good' at 4.4, something which totally and pleasantly surprised me!!  So in MY case, the two did not go hand in hand.....

Good luck with your results Carina.

WHAT an interesting thread............

xx


----------



## Jean (Oct 13, 2009)

*Now we can put levity aside, Peter C...*

...and on with a serious discussion.

Oxidation and inflamation are not merely involved in heart disease - they are essential factors.   As you say, the turnkey.  Wthout oxidation, cholesterol - so beneficial to the body - would proceed harmlessly on its way.

But since it doesn't, a choice has to be made.

Either we focus on negating the work of oxidation or we attack chlolesterol.  You opt for the latter.  And yet there is an increasing body of evidence that shows cholesterol to be merely the tool that has been perverted by the free radicals in the body.

Forget the commercial in the link I supplied, for CoQ10 is, as you say, at the moment of doubtful value: it has to undergo more rigorous trials than hitherto if it is to pass muster.

Instead, consider the overall hypothesis: if we act against oxidation, cholesterol can be left in peace.   

(Even here, though, there is a balance that needs to be attained: supplementary antioxidant vitamins can function so well that they neutralise free radicals to such an extent that the role they perform in attacking bacteria and cancer cells in the body is impaired.)

So set the supplements on one side and focus on the dietary antioxidants.  They absorb the free radicals.  

 If, however, the antioxidant level in the body is low,the free radicals run riot.  And there is some evidence to show that diabetics have more free radicals and fewer antioxidants than other folk.

The consumption of fruit and vegetables aids the production of antioxidants and the combatting of the ill-effects of oxidation.  This, in turn, reduces the damaging effect free radicals can otherwise have on cholesterol.

Thus it can fairly be contended that the enemy should not be identified as cholesterol, but instead the finger should be pointed at oxidation - and this is where the counter-attack should be focussed.


----------



## jo1966 (Oct 13, 2009)

In response to Sharpwaa, the symptoms you experienced sound like myalgia a known side effect of statins, hence withdraw the statin and the pain disappears. If needed there are other medications that will do the job called fibrates if statins are not tolerated as seems to be your case.
Just to stick my own twopenneth in.
When I was diagnosed with Diabetes nearly 20 years ago now my cholesterol was 8.6, it soon however reduced as my blood sugars decreased.
I do take statins and have had no side effects from them and am pleased that such things are available as I have familial hyperlipidemia.
My lovely dad had his first heart attack at the tender age of 35 and died at the age of 50 and had no such medications available to him.Incidentally all the males in his family have died at before the age of 50 with CHD.
I have 2 brothers who also have familial hyperlipidemia and have also been diagnosed with Diabetes Type 2, none of us are overweight so as our ' genes' seem to ill fitting we need all the help we can get.
Just as a matter of point the fact that my dad had his first heart attack at 35 we were all brought up on low fat, low salt and low cholesterol diets.


----------



## Peter C (Oct 13, 2009)

Jean said:


> ...and on with a serious discussion.
> 
> Oxidation and inflamation are not merely involved in heart disease - they are essential factors.   As you say, the turnkey.  Wthout oxidation, cholesterol - so beneficial to the body - would proceed harmlessly on its way.
> 
> ...


----------



## Steff (Oct 13, 2009)

Lets not all fall out people , we are all entitled to say what we want on here no need for people to leave I assumed the comment jean made was directed at Peter , sharpaa get back here will you


----------



## Northerner (Oct 13, 2009)

sharpwaa said:


> Well,  that's me put in my place,  pity really,  I enjoyed coming on to this forum...........bye all x



Getaway with ye sharpwaa! Your contributions are enormously appreciated! And Jean's comment was directed at Peter C!
Something that the debate does not seem to have answered for me is why it seems to be irrelevant what your level of cholesterol is - it seems to me that any level above zero virtually is deemed 'too high' or 'lower would be better'. I can see the logic of reducing a level considered high (i.e. higher than might be found in the healthiest portion of the population (for argument's sake, let's say the healthiest 30%), and how this might normalise a person's propensity to CVD - and even how a slightly lower level might be desirable in someone with an extra problem like diabetes - but beyond that, where should the lower limit be before doctors agree that it is low enough?

If you see what I mean!


----------



## am64 (Oct 13, 2009)

sharpwaa said:


> Well,  that's me put in my place,  pity really,  I enjoyed coming on to this forum...........bye all x



NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back, I enjoy your threads as they always seem to explain things to me in Plain english! sometimes the technical lanuage of medical professionals (and non professionals) makes no sense to me at all and i like to think i am quite intelligent! HaHa...as for jokes and jovial comments I find them totally refreshing !!! 
Comments such as.... 'on with a serious discussion' are patronising  everyones comment/opinion is valid however they choose to express it !!

If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !


----------



## Steff (Oct 13, 2009)

am64 said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back, I enjoy your threads as they always seem to explain things to me in Plain english! sometimes the technical lanuage of medical professionals (and non professionals) makes no sense to me at all and i like to think i am quite intelligent! HaHa...as for jokes and jovial comments I find them totally refreshing !!!
> Comments such as.... 'on with a serious discussion' are patronising  everyones comment/opinion is valid however they choose to express it !!
> 
> If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !




yup count my name as first on it


----------



## HelenP (Oct 13, 2009)

am64 said:


> NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO sharpwaa come back ..........If you dont come back I'll have to start a petition !



Where do I sign??

(Unfortunately, this discussion has moved on from stuff that I am able to understand, and I'm still not sure whether I take the bloomin' things or not!!)

xx


----------



## am64 (Oct 13, 2009)

Bless Helen P X 

ps I didnt wnt to turn this into a bring back sharpwaa thread honest North...

Back to the serious matter of Statins from now on folks!


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 13, 2009)

Sharpy, don't you dare leave, we all value your presence and would miss you very much.

Everyone has a viewpoint and folk can get carried away, but we should never let these debates become personal or take what people say personally.


----------



## rossi_mac (Oct 13, 2009)

bugger me! some strong view points here peeps! And a hell of a lot of information for the nation! Keep it up you're teaching us simple folk a thing or three! Oh and don't get all up tight and fall out people please.


----------



## tracey w (Oct 14, 2009)

C*5_Dodger said:


> Dear Northerner,
> 
> I agree with your point about risk and benefit, but the real point at issue is the reason they are prescribed. The overwhelming reason is that they lower cholesterol because it is believed that high cholesterol causes heart disease (did you watch Malcolm Kendrick's video that I included in a recent post?). However, it is now becoming clear that cholesterol and saturated fat do not cause heart disease. Statins work because they are powerful anti-inflamatory drugs so unless you have elevated C reactive protein they should not even be considered and even then only if it's elevated due to inflamation connected with heart disease. BTW, I note VBH has stopped them also!
> 
> ...



I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on  my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 14, 2009)

tracey w said:


> I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on  my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic.



Thanks for that Tracey, I think this is the real difficulty we have - if someone at the level of cunsultant doesn't agree with them I think that validates the suspicions we mere mortals have about them, whether we understand the science or not. I am also mindful of the vast amunt of money backing the statin cause and miniscule amount available to those who challenge it.

I know it is probably psychological, but I do feel better since I stopped taking them nearly a week ago now. I have fewer muscle/joint pains (that I had been putting down to running) and am less troubled by the morning nausea that has plagued me since I was diagnosed. Interestingly, I stopped statins last year for a period of time when my doctor was trying to determine which of my medications was making me ill. The nausea was relieved somewhat then too, but we couldn't be absolutely sure it was just them so I was advised to go back on them. Now I think it was partly them and partly the aspirin. Now I am taking enteric coated aspirin and no statins the nausea has all but disappeared!


----------



## tracey w (Oct 14, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Thanks for that Tracey, I think this is the real difficulty we have - if someone at the level of cunsultant doesn't agree with them I think that validates the suspicions we mere mortals have about them, whether we understand the science or not. I am also mindful of the vast amunt of money backing the statin cause and miniscule amount available to those who challenge it.
> 
> I know it is probably psychological, but I do feel better since I stopped taking them nearly a week ago now. I have fewer muscle/joint pains (that I had been putting down to running) and am less troubled by the morning nausea that has plagued me since I was diagnosed. Interestingly, I stopped statins last year for a period of time when my doctor was trying to determine which of my medications was making me ill. The nausea was relieved somewhat then too, but we couldn't be absolutely sure it was just them so I was advised to go back on them. Now I think it was partly them and partly the aspirin. Now I am taking enteric coated aspirin and no statins the nausea has all but disappeared!



thats great Northener, i think what we all need is good quality of life now and going forward, whatever the future holds. who wants to feel nauseous or achey or worse every day? dont we have enough to deal with. Im so with you on all this!


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 14, 2009)

tracey w said:


> I saw the video you posted a while back and did a little research too, my gp wanted me on them initially but i refused, he was not too happy, luckily my consultant was on  my side, he doesnt agree with them either. The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic.



Dear Tracey,

Thanks for the update, I have been banging on about this for months - nice to see you found a consultant that has a similar viewpont. I'm lucky too I convinced my GP!

Warmest Regards  Dodger


----------



## tracey w (Oct 14, 2009)

C*5_Dodger said:


> Dear Tracey,
> 
> Thanks for the update, I have been banging on about this for months - nice to see you found a consultant that has a similar viewpont. I'm lucky too I convinced my GP!
> 
> Warmest Regards  Dodger



Yes he is great! my gp put me on amitryptaline(spelling) for headaches, when i saw the consultant he told me to throw them and cut down on coffee, it worked 

problem is he is finishing soon, got top job, running the hospital i think,


----------



## hermit104 (Oct 14, 2009)

tracey w said:


> The hospital keep wanting to change my consultant to one that deals with pumps,, but i met her on dafne and she basically said ALL diabetics in her care are on statins as we need to be below 4, i have refused to change to her clinic.


This is scary as conventional wisdom says that statins should not be given to women who might become pregant (I do not know how to do a link but just Google "statins pregnancy").  Though the Daily Mail wants all pregnant women on them!


----------



## Northerner (Oct 14, 2009)

hermit104 said:


> This is scary as conventional wisdom says that statins should not be given to women who might become pregant (I do not know how to do a link but just Google "statins pregnancy").  Though the Daily Mail wants all pregnant women on them!



What is the Daily Mail's reasoning? I thought that statins had been shown to increase the risks of birth defects. Before I was born, my Mum was offered thalidomide to help her through morning sickness, but she refused them. It was a while before they realised how harmful it could be and I had a few friends growing up who had fingers missing etc. I think where babies are concerned you have to be more than careful about anything - it is so dependant on its mother as it develops.

Tracey and Ellowynne's experiences  illustrate the point of how confusing it is for the patient - one has a consultant supporting statins, but a GP who does not, the other has them the other way round!


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 14, 2009)

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/12/081209085620.htm
http://yourtotalhealth.ivillage.com/statins.html?pageNum=8
http://www.gpnotebook.co.uk/simplepage.cfm?ID=x20070211072151295600


It seems that like all things (there is a God.......no there isn't), that there is conflicting opinions on Statins and pregnancy.....but most seem to point in the direction of it being a no-no!!


----------



## Bicardigirl (Oct 14, 2009)

1. I know I do not want to live forever.
2. People I know who have taken statins long term usually seem to have bad side effects from them in the end (stomach problems etc).
3. Some people have immediate side affects of a similar type to point 2, and I dont think that being told that you will have to live with that for the good of your long term health is a good way to exist (living after all involves enjoying your time on this earth).
3. As far as I am aware we will all die in the end, and I dont want to spend my whole time paranoid about what I have to consume. So I will try to control my dietry habits to keep myself as healthy as possible, but will not take anything that does not guarentee a result.

It is always a personal choice on what advice to follow, and medical advice is worth considering, but there are many other ways than "another drug" to be healthy.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 14, 2009)

You hit the nail on the head there Bicardigirl. When I was medicated up to the eyeballs last year I felt miserable all the time - not seriously poorly, just the constant day-in, day-out of feeling unwell, and it really affected my quality of life. Today I went for a 5 mile run and have felt better than I have in months! And that run probably did more good for my heart and cholesterol levels than any pill!


----------



## Sugarmouse (Oct 23, 2009)

I have been reading all your interesting messages about statins. I have been a Type 1 diabetic since 1976 (yes, for 33 years!) I am in a dilemma. My cholestrol is creeping up now that I am in my 40s. It was 4.3 in June and 4.5 on 19 Oct (the good & bad cholesterol levels are acceptable). Another measurement will be taken for my Diabetic Clinic in January 2010.

I have received mixed advice from the medics! Some diabetics take statins after 10 years of diabetes, whatever their cholesterol level. 

If you are female, the risk of heart attack generally increases after the menopause (due to hormonal changes). So another option is to wait until this change and then take statins, as long as your cholesterol is in the acceptable range for a diabetic (below 5.0?).

In my family, both my parents (now in their 70s) had reactions to statins. This makes me cautious about taking them, although I am aware that there are different types that can be used. However, my consultant has said that if your parents have a reation to statins it does not mean that you will have a reaction to statins.

I start a DAFNE course in Sonerset on Monday (26-30 October), so perhaps I will be able to discuss this issue there.

Any comments welcome!

Thank you.

Sugarmouse


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 23, 2009)

Can you reduce the level by diet, or are you already doing that? I was put on statins at the same time as all the diabetes pills. At that point my cholesterol level was 10.4, I'll find out on Monday if the pills and change in diet have helped at all. I do know I don't want to stay on statins a moment longer than absolutely necessary, I'm at that uncertain age and both parents died from cancer.


----------



## Northerner (Oct 23, 2009)

Hi Sugarmouse, personally I would be happy with those levels and there's always going to be some variability each time you are tested. I was 2.4 a year ago, then 3.2 last time. But from what I have read, unless it is actually high then the extra risk is small, and you do need to consider if the reduction in risk is worth the potential extra risk of taking statins.

This link gives quite a succinct overview of the cholesterol hypothesis:

http://www.wellnessclubsofamerica.com/Copy_of_Cholesterol_Low_Part_1_c.html

(because they give American measurements, you need to divide the numbers by 38 to get the near equivalent to ours)

You'd think that at the very least the medical fraternity would be in agreement, but to me it seems to depend on how closely they've studied the subject, or whether they are just following conventional wisdom without seeking out whether it is all 'pros' or 'pros and cons' that cholesterol must be driven ever lower.

Good luck on your DAFNE course - I hope you enjoy it!


----------



## Northerner (Oct 23, 2009)

On ITV1 now (8 pm) a programme about statins. I missed the first 10 mins.


----------



## AlisonM (Oct 23, 2009)

The portfolio eating plan. Sounds interesting.


----------



## Moamber (Oct 23, 2009)

I saw the programme mentioned and I can honestly say have tried them all, and still take them! I have also had a stroke, it certainly opened my eyes to Statins!

Hugs Mo xx


----------



## Sugarmouse (Oct 24, 2009)

Northerner said:


> Hi Sugarmouse, personally I would be happy with those levels and there's always going to be some variability each time you are tested. I was 2.4 a year ago, then 3.2 last time. But from what I have read, unless it is actually high then the extra risk is small, and you do need to consider if the reduction in risk is worth the potential extra risk of taking statins.
> 
> This link gives quite a succinct overview of the cholesterol hypothesis:
> 
> ...



Hi Northerner

Thanks for that! I won't have to make a decision until January about whether I start taking statins. So I have some time to do some research to make an informed choice. I will start by looking at the link you quoted....

From Sugarmouse


----------



## Sugarmouse (Oct 24, 2009)

AlisonM said:


> Can you reduce the level by diet, or are you already doing that? I was put on statins at the same time as all the diabetes pills. At that point my cholesterol level was 10.4, I'll find out on Monday if the pills and change in diet have helped at all. I do know I don't want to stay on statins a moment longer than absolutely necessary, I'm at that uncertain age and both parents died from cancer.



Hi AlisonM

I hope that your results on Monday show that your tablets have helped reduce your cholesterol level. I am very sorry to hear about your parents.
Thank you for the suggestion about diet. I have received different advice about whether reducing fat in the diet helps lower cholesterol levels. Some say diet can help. Others say that diet has a minimal effect as your body decides how much cholesterol to produce (genetic link?). However, there is always room to reduce the saturated fat in my diet. I love cheese! I do try and stick to the softer ones like camembert, but I suppose I could opt for cottage cheese... 
As mentioned I start a DAFNE course on Monday, where there will be a number of dietitians I can ask. And good luck with the results on Monday.

From Sugarmouse


----------



## Northerner (Oct 24, 2009)

Northerner said:


> On ITV1 now (8 pm) a programme about statins. I missed the first 10 mins.



For those of you who missed it, this is the link to watch the programme:

http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/default.html?ViewType=5&Filter=105787


----------



## cazscot (Oct 24, 2009)

Thanks Northerner very interesting programme.


----------



## katie (Oct 24, 2009)

Northerner said:


> For those of you who missed it, this is the link to watch the programme:
> 
> http://www.itv.com/ITVPlayer/Video/default.html?ViewType=5&Filter=105787



Thanks Northe, I'll watch that in bed later


----------



## RachelT (Oct 24, 2009)

This is very interesting...wait till the statin rep comes by my pharmacy next time...hehehe. 
I have to say i'm skeptical. It's clear that high cholesterol is a factor in atherosclerosis and i think that Statins have been proven to reduce deaths from blocked arteries (and DVT/ Strokes i guess) in some people. I'm not sure exactly how this applies to me since i like to think i'm far from elderly (under 35). As far as i can tell, the NICE guidlines say that diabetes should take statins anyway. I'm slightly worried about all this "unproved drug" business though. As far as i'm aware, all drugs, modern drugs anyway, i don't think Paracetmol ever got clinical trials, have to go through extensive trials to test effectiveness and toxicity before they get given out on prescription to the general public. 
Saying this, i'm on statins, but i was worried that they were giving me cramps to my GP told me to stop taking them for a bit, so i have. Last blood test  said my cholesterol was "normal" so, i figure they work even when i don't take em...Which is great coz it means no side effects...


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 25, 2009)

RachelT said:


> This is very interesting...wait till the statin rep comes by my pharmacy next time...hehehe.
> I have to say i'm skeptical. It's clear that high cholesterol is a factor in atherosclerosis and i think that Statins have been proven to reduce deaths from blocked arteries (and DVT/ Strokes i guess) in some people....



Dear RacheIT,

Have you seen this:

*Cholesterol does not cause CVD*

The data comes from the WHO and you can't get better than that

Warmest Regards   Dodger


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 25, 2009)

seen what????..................it's a shy quote!!!!!!!


----------



## HelenP (Oct 25, 2009)

Lol, if you hover your mouse over  "Cholesterol does not cause CVD" in the post, that is the link! 

xx


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 25, 2009)

DiabeticDave said:


> seen what????..................it's a shy quote!!!!!!!



Dear Dave,

I just tested it and it's OK. On my machine I have to click on the words "Cholesterol does not cause CVD"

Warmest Regards   Dodger


----------



## RachelT (Oct 25, 2009)

*Cholesterol don't cause DVT*

sorry, that was the extrapolation/random thought processes of somebody without a medical degree. It was a thought rather than a fact. Didn't mean to mislead anyone. Also, my dumb internet roving dongle thingy won't let me go on YouTube so i'll take your word for it.


----------



## C*5_Dodger (Oct 26, 2009)

RachelT said:


> sorry, that was the extrapolation/random thought processes of somebody without a medical degree. It was a thought rather than a fact. Didn't mean to mislead anyone. Also, my dumb internet roving dongle thingy won't let me go on YouTube so i'll take your word for it.



Dear RacheIT,

LOL, I didn't realise that "dumb internet roving dongle thingies" were so limited in bandwidth 

Warmest Regards   Dodger

PS We can only express opinions, no apology necessary!


----------



## DiabeticDave (Oct 26, 2009)

HelenP said:


> Lol, if you hover your mouse over  "Cholesterol does not cause CVD" in the post, that is the link!
> 
> xx



 I'd of done it in bold.......or like this


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8SSCNaaDcE


----------



## falcon123 (Oct 27, 2009)

I, for one, have never been that convinced about statins. Although my cholesterol is relatively low, at 4.1, I have been advised to take them a number of times in recent years. I have only spoken with one GP who was not particularly in favour. She felt it was being promoted as a ?cradle to grave? drug and that most of the research seemed to have the hand of the manufacturer on it! A friend is ordering this book and I will read it ?idc?. 

Although I found the video interesting I think the inclusion of aborigines not really relevant. Until 150/200 yeas ago they were hunter/gatherers. The incoming Europeans severely limited their lifestyle and this has had adverse effects on their health. The rate of heart disease amongst aborigines is far higher than those of European descent. Factors that affect this are a sedentary lifestyle, poor diet, high alcohol consumption and higher than usual incidences of high BP, diabetes, and rheumatic heart disease. Apologies for going into rant mode. A distant cousin lives in Adelaide and when I visited Australia a few years ago I found the treatment of aborigines worse than I had imagined. Many men die around 40, not dissimilar to the grimmer parts of Africa.

Overall heart disease is a complex issue to which statins are not a cure-all.


----------

