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

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.

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 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

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

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

''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.

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.

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/

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?

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.

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.

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