Statins

Jury's out really. Some say very benficial, some say not. I take them and don't seem to have any side-effects anyway. Missus had heart-attack and was put on them, no probs so far. Will say, apparently, some can be classed as Rolls Royce statins and some Fiat Punto. Get prescribed the best ones as possible

Yes, 40 mg. I don't have any side effects so continue to take them.
A lot of people do have problems with them and a friend of mine discontinued as he would rather take the risk of a heart attack than suffer the side effects. There are worse ways of dying.

I am sorry to hear about your TIA, johnizere.

As regarding the statins if I had a TIA I would not take them, but that is because I am very against taking any pills.  I rarely take any pills except for really bad pain like toothache.  I have read a lot over the years about pills being pushed upon us, not because they do us any good but the profits they make. 

I was on the bus today and heard a woman get on who apologised for her slowness by saying she was ninety.  We got talking and she attributed her good health by saying that she had never taken any pills because when she was young she was found to be allergic to them.

I have been put on a 6 month course of statins (Atorvastatin 20mg). An ECG found a slight anomaly on the left-hand side of my heart and my cholesterol was very high (it was normal the year previous). I have got about 8 more weeks of statins before i have the blood and ECG tests again.

I don't get any side affects from the Statins.

Was on 40mg but was told every one's on 80mg now. To help lower my slightly high cholesterol level. Apparently its working with no ill effects for me, apart from the constant lethargy, manic depression and compleat loss of labido, which im told isnt connected.

Smart arse, your 6 course of 20mg = forever on correct dose. imo.

I had a stroke in my Cerebellum a year and a half ago, yeah I know it explains a lot. Got very lucky and have recovered well.

I was given Atorvastatin 40mg and have been taking it since my stroke, with no side affects to speak off.

I had a good conversation with my consultant before leaving hospital and he insisted the benefits far outweighed any perceived negatives.

Listen to your Doctor Johnizere...unless it's that grassin Gimp Crippen...

I was on them for about 6 years only 10mg then I came off them for a year because of all the bad press ..I had a long chat with my doctor she advised me to go back on as I was taking such a small amount so I have started to take them again ..hard to know what is right or wrong ...my doctor told me she was on them

If you need them take them. I have used them for over 12 years. They can make the mouth very dry but other than that they have given me no problems that I am aware of.

Yeah I suffer from a dry mouth at night in bed ...but it has only been the last couple of weeks I put it down to having a cold

I was on a fairly high dose and got a lot of muscle pain. GP dropped the dose down to 10mg and have been ok since.

cut out red meat you will be half way there. most bad cholesterol is in meat but cheese & dairy get blamed as worse.
cut both out you will be healthy bit bored. i would rather eat cheese & die young i love it that much

unless it's that grassin Gimp Crippen

At least I'm above coming on here calling other people names.
What did you doctor prescribe for that. A course in good manners?

''The risks of any side effects also have to be balanced against the benefits of preventing serious problems. A review of scientific studies into the effectiveness of statins found that around one in every 50 people who take the medication for five years will avoid a serious event, such as a heart attack or stroke, as a result.''

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/statins/

''Statins reduce your production of cholesterol in the liver.''

So why does your body make cholesterol if it can kill you?
Your body doesn't make it to kill you, cholesterol is essential for your body.
Our bodies use what they call the bad LDL cholesterol as a kind of plaster to patch up damage in your arteries caused by inflammation.
That's how your arteries get clogged and you have an attack.
Stop the inflammation and the problem isn't there.
But as usual, medicine provides a remedy that doesn't address the cause of the problem, which is inflammation in the arteries.
There's more money for the pharmaceuticals in getting everyone on statins.

And you'll still likely to die of a heart attack anyway if you're disposed to it.

A higher risk of diabetes is associated with taking statins.

don't be fat. fat folk suffer more from cardiac & diabetic problems more. obviously there are exceptions but not many

That one in fifty figure above includes those at high risk, and the ones who have already had problems in this area as far as I can tell.

If you consider that people who take statins are more likely to take precautions which help their health anyway, then statins don't appear to do a lot, except for their potential to inflict long term damage to our health.

Here's a good case for not taking them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OaCzL3J97oY

And many other independent doctors agree with him.

Here's a good one.

The Cholesterol Drug War: ABC Australia Bans Documentary Exposing Statin Drug Scandal

''ABC News in Australia has done an incredible investigative report on cholesterol-lowering statin drugs, daring to expose organized crime in the pharmaceutical industry in the U.S. This is an area where no mainstream media outlet in the USA dares to go, due to the influence of the pharmaceutical industry.''

http://healthimpactnews.com/2014/the-cholesterol-drug-war-abc-australia-bans-documentary-exposing-statin-drug-scandal/

At least I'm above coming on here calling other people names.
What did you doctor prescribe for that. A course in good manners?

Was going to try and dig out a witty name calling reply....but how could I top that put down

I have a feeling that you take yourself way more seriously than anyone else does.

Pomposity is when you always think you're right. Arrogance is when you know.

Brockville,
I see you've added nothing for or against the case for taking statins in your last effort.

Here's a another contribution from me.

These are the figures for those with a 20% or higher risk of developing a heart event in the next ten years.

You'll be in this group Brockville along with johnizere.

Meta-analysis of randomised trial data shows that if patients with a 10-year cardiovascular risk of at least 20% take statins for 5 years, it would prevent at least 450 heart attacks, strokes, or vascular deaths per 10,000 treated patients.

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/statins-benefits-and-risks

So they claim statins save 1 in 22 attacks in the highest risk group in a five year period,  according to their figures
And guess who compiles the figures?

Weight that against the risk of serious long term side effects for the vast majority who are never going to get a heart event at all.

Like a 48% extra risk in women developing diabetes after taking them.
Then there are the people who have to stop them due to liver problems.
What about those who do not show the liver problems immediately, but develop serious irreversible problems further down the line? They certainly aren't going to tell them it was caused by the statins.
Muscle problems account for a even more.
Cancer concerns even.

Still think your doctor knows best?

And of course, plenty of people who take statins suffer strokes and heart attacks anyway.

They simply tell us that statins reduce the risk of us getting one a tad.
The figures are above.

Meta-analysis of randomised trial data shows that if patients with a 10-year cardiovascular risk of at least 20% take statins for 5 years, it would prevent at least 450 heart attacks, strokes, or vascular deaths per 10,000 treated patients.

https://www.gov.uk/drug-safety-update/statins-benefits-and-risks

So they claim statins save 1 in 22 attacks in the highest risk group in a five year period,  according to their figures

No.

If those 10,000 patients have a 20% risk of a heart attack, stroke or vascular death within 10 years, then that means there would normally be 2,000 attacks etc. among that group. If statins prevent 450 of those events, than that means they prevent 1 in 4.4 attacks, not 1 in 22.

I'm not arguing that prescribing statins is a good thing, just arguing with the arithmetic. I agree that the target should be preventing arterial inflammation, not the LDL cholesterol the body uses to tackle the inflammation. But that involves eating your greens rather than smoking your ciggies,  and snacking on nuts instead of crisps, and sardines instead of chips. And getting a dog instead of a car. But how many patients are going to do that?

Thanks for pointing that out screaming, I can't believe I missed that.
Nevertheless we're still not out of the wood where those figures are concerned.
They state 20% risk or more.
How much more  - like how many at very high risk say up to 80%?
And also the ones possibly even higher or in-between?
That would increase the expected events to a higher figure than the 2000 at 20%.
And reduce the prevention rate of 1in 4.4 claimed at 20%.

 
The figures have been taken from 5 trials 3 of which were published in the Lancet, which is a very prestigious publication. I believe we would need to examine those trials in order to get a clearer picture.
And also any lifestyle changes in the patients that could have affected the results.

The figures do however contrast sharply with the 1 in 50 figure of prevention rate of statins  claimed on the NHS Choices website which I supplied a link for earlier.

no it cannot be claimed that 20% means a figure of 1 in 4.4
The sample was 10,000 people and we don't know what else they were doing , other lifestyle choices , as well as taking statins over the period of time
The very fact of being part of this trial could mean that they might be more likely to have better outcomes
That's why the figure of 1 in 22 is claimed

If you are a doctor and your patient is being monitored closely , as part of a trial .then that patient might be more likely not to die ?
That's why at the very least we have to take the figure if 1 in 22 rather than 1 in 4.4

for that reason the 450 less deaths are for 10,000 patients , not 2,000