How safe are statins?

[truedelphi]

Statins are used to help an individual lower their cholesterol levels. The theory is - if your level is higher than 190, you are at greater risk of heart disease. There are people who dispute this - for instance, many people in Denmark have high cholesterol, but they also do not have a higher rate of death from heart disease. (Perhaps the pervasiveness of fish in the typical Danish person's diet offsets the cholesterol?)


However there are concerns. Statins are now being implicated in the development of rapid onset ALS or neuropathy.


Several sources for what I am saying:

Source One, an individual and her personal experience with statins - and part of her testimony is that once it became clear to her GP that her health had been affected by statins, her medical records were altered!

She includes this:
When researching information on peripheral neuropathy I found this information:

“For susceptible individuals, the use of a statin drug can interfere with proper functioning of peripheral nerves. Researchers assume that the build-up of statins in the body causes neuropathy in some individuals. If left undiagnosed, neuropathy can lead to deterioration of the muscles and paralysis. This can lead to problems swallowing, breathing, and complications of the heart –
as these all involve muscle groups. In the extreme case, severe neuropathy as a side-effect to statin use can lead to death.”

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:63SZIoFJKAIJ:www.inspire.com/groups/als-advocacy/discussion/statins-and-als-like-syndrome-1/+statins+%2B+ALS&cd=8&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

Source Two:

This is the website of another individual whose husband developed what doctors called ALS, and which he is now dying from - after only some months on the statin medication. Please note: Tradionally ALS ALWAYS starts from the feet or knees up. In the case where the neuropathy is Statin-induced, it seems to start at the neck, or shoulders or upper back area.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:PJF0Adxp1sEJ:www.onlineathens.com/stories/082509/liv_485566558.shtml+statins+%2B+ALS&cd=5&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=usLiving

The Third Source is the most technical of all the sources, and takes a bit more effort to understand. But offers a much more clinical/scientific understanding of what is involved.

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:0oxKS---QCcJ:www.spacedoc.net/ALS_statins.html+statins+%2B+ALS&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

[Speck Tater]

1. Is there anything you can do to make that second link work?

It's a bad URL. I'd very much like to read that one.

On edit: Here's the corrected second link: www.onlineathens.com/stories/082509/liv_485566558.shtml

[truedelphi]

10. Thank you for fixing the second link. n/t

[Warpy]

2. Most people take statin drugs with no side effects

but people who take them need to be aware of danger signs like muscle pain or weakness and new or increased peripheral neuropathy. Should they develop any of these they need to stop taking the drug and call the doctor.

Most people do well. A minority do not. Everyone who takes them needs to be aware of which side effects signal serious problems.

[truedelphi]

3. Okay so please explain - how is it that we KNOW that MOST PEOPLE

take the statin drugs with no effects.

How? By the FDA, whose research in so many arenas of the modern world and especially with developing health/food issues is seriously compromised. Maybe your experience with the FDA is a decent one - but my experience is vastly different. As someone who investigated the pesticide industry for over fifteen years, I can say with total authority, that The FDA is the most compromised agency that I can think of, except for maybe the EPA being equally compromised.

Read these articles, please. And then get back to me.

[Warpy]

4. Doctors follow their patients on them, binky

Oh, right, no medical professional ever wanted to do anything but kill their patients. I see.

Go back to your regular ranting and raving.

[truedelphi]

5. Now you are not only over defending this agency, you are willing to state

That doctors don't alter their patients' records?

First of all, nowhere did I say that most doctors are out to kill people. (?!? I am the one ranting and raving? Where did I say doctors are out to kill people?)

But the doctors that goof, especially if they are beholden to a large HMO like Kaiser Permanente, they know that they have nothing to worry about because Kaiser will never release the paperwork. As the spouse of a victim in such a case, I can attest to that. The day that the totally erroneous diagnosis was made, that entire day disappeared from my spouse's medical history. Thus no law suit. (You can find an attorney to help you sue Kaiser only after really searching very hard. Sometimes after such a search, you may have yourself an attorney. But usually you won't. Most attorneys will not go after Kaiser for the very reason I mention.)

[Celebration]

6. I'm waiting for a Vioxx like scandal with statins

They KNOW that people need to take COQ10 with these, yet they do nothing about it. I keep waiting and waiting for the class action suits.

[truedelphi]

9. I had never heard anything about the COQ10.

I do know several people who have gotten amazing results with CQ10 but they were not using the statins.

So why even take the statins? Even the commercials that propagandize the importance of statins tell you you need to make adjustments in terms of better diet and more exercise. And that only after making those adjustments will you see results. So what are the REAL results of taking statins?

[HuckleB]

27. So you judge statins based on commercials?

WOW!

[BuddhaGirl]

56. CoQ10 is also great for the gums

hubby has always had gum issues - his dentist recommended CoQ10 about 5 years ago, and his gums are healthier now.

It's a really important nutrient and incredibly beneficial!

[BuddhaGirl]

39. yes, CoQ10 is an absolute must

for anyone taking statins...statins deplete this important nutrient.

[truedelphi]

42. So why don't the pharmaceuticals pushing the product point that out?

I can never figure out the working minds of the Greedy and the Powerful.

[BuddhaGirl]

49. probably because they wouldn't be able to patent it

and sell it exclusively...wouldn't be in their greedy self-interest!

[HuckleB]

51. Hardly.

http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/does-coenzyme-q10-relieve-statin-induced-muscle-pain/

"...The relevance of CoQ10 to statin myopathy is thought to come from its involvement in cell energy production, where preliminary data emerged to suggest that muscle mitochondrial dysfunction due to low levels of CoQ10 in the body might explain the muscle pain and/or weakness.<12> <13>

Limited data means it’s not clear that low levels of CoQ10 cause myalgia, or if myalgia can occur without low levels of CoQ10. In fact, at least four other equally valid hypotheses for statin-induced mylagia exist.<14> Consequently, the measurement of CoQ10 levels is not clinically relevant.

..."

[BuddhaGirl]

52. I wasn't talking about it's effect on muscle pain caused by statins

CoQ10 is important for healthy heart function...so CoQ10 supplementation is important if one takes statins.

[HuckleB]

53. You did not read what I posted.

But keep digging.

[BuddhaGirl]

54. thanks, but no thanks

I replied - keep digging yourself. :-)

[HuckleB]

55. Why reply if you haven't read the link?

:shrug:

[BuddhaGirl]

57. I looked at the link

n/t

[HuckleB]

58. Did you read the entire link?

[HuckleB]

50. Does Coenzyme Q10 Relieve Statin-Induced Muscle Pain?

Read this full review. It shows your claim to be false.

http://sciencebasedpharmacy.wordpress.com/2010/02/21/does-coenzyme-q10-relieve-statin-induced-muscle-pain/

[HuckleB]

7. Statins Are Better on JUPITER

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=282

[truedelphi]

11. I thought that the comment below was quite illustrative:

COMMENT by pecon 11 Nov 2008 at 6:55 pm:

The study only continued for 2 years, so you cannot conclude statins are safe over a lifetime. And it does not contradict the claims of the cholesterol skeptics at all —

It would make more sense to investigate the causes of chronic inflammation, and to find more natural ways of reducing it. Statins can have very serious side effects in some individuals, and they are usually taken for many years. The effects of statins over very long periods is not known.End of comment

Also nothing in the article details the situation where a subset of the population is afflicted with ALS-type neuropathies, that do not start as ALS typically does, at the lower regions of the body (feet or ankles or lower thigh muscle_) and work it's way up, but starts at the upper back, shoulder or nechk areas. And often kills the person outright within a year.

So what I would like, is to see a risk to benefit study done. And not by an astrologer or tarot card reader, but by someone like John Froines, who was appointed by Calif. governor in the late nineteen ninteties to assemble a panel to look into the risk-benefits of MTBE.

Mr Froines does science that is not only done without reproach - he cannot be swayed by industry and their bribes. (Oops - I mean "industry's free speech offers of jobs or money")

[truedelphi]

12. One other thing here - one KNOWN cause of inflammation inside the arteries

And the heart valves itself are the bacteria and viral material that come from bad cavity ridden teeth.

Note how the preponderance of people with heart disease are older people, and of course older people have teeth in far worse repair than their younger counterparts. It would be quite interesting to learn exactly what percentage of those whose inflammation levels are high due to bad teeth, and how big a subset of the high cholesterol group they comprise.

So has any scientist/researcher out there looked into a determination of how many people might have their inflammation levels taper off if they have access to good dental care? Right now, for many people, dental care is out of their reach. (Even those with dental insurance find it too expensive, as the insurance pays only 50% of the treatment's costs.)

[HuckleB]

14. You have offered hypotheses.

Please offer the studies that show your hypotheses to be in need of further study.

The two anecdotes you offered in your OP, are not exactly something worthy of starting a discussion. So can you offer real evidence?

Thanks.

[truedelphi]

16. I am offering up hypotheses, and as such

Any one interested who is a researcher, could either prove or disprove.

I learned the word "hypotheses" back when many on this board were still in diapers. Back when we also learned logic, induction and deductive reasoning.

And no I cannot offer real evidence. What I am offering is conjecture just as in

1) 1972, I went to my boss and complained that the secondhand smoke in our office was affecting me in a non-productive manner. He told me I was nuts. Forty years later, and second hand smoke is a recognized and proven health risk. The genome DNA sequencing proved without a doubt that smoke from cigarettes causes such noxious diseases as lung cancer and emphysema.

2) 1996 and I realized that the reports coming out of the CARB (Calif. Air Resources Board) office in Sacramento were contradictory with regards to the safety of highly touted "environmentally approved" gas additive MTBE. I collected much research, a great deal of it from excellent labs that were offering research that the officials in charge of the state's health were suppressing.

I offered research to the SF Chronicle, and to Mercury Examiner as research related to a "public health crisis." Newspaper initially interested, but upon realizing that MTBE was a chem deemed okay by Big Oil interests, they lost interest. I was published in 1997, after a year of the major media stonewalling such articles as mine. John Froines, a major science researcher offered monies by California Governor Davis, went on to research MTBE. He and his panel proved that the "risk to benefit" health considerations showed MTBE offered more risk than benefit.

Were my early-on reports only hypotheses? Yes, those that were not backed by the research at science labs were only hypotheses. Other research I collected was actually research done in a lab by decent researchers, and was therefore proven science. Was it illegal to think up such hypotheses. No, in fact if millions of like-minded Californians had not raised such hypotheses, it can be assumed that the Governor would have never acted as he did.


3) As you read the following - keep in mind - the same people that run the pesticide industry, are also overseers of the safety of the Pharmaceuticals. Novartis et al.

Between 1991 and 2005, I studied the pesticide industry and learned a great deal. I learned how many researchers are cast out of the industry of researching chemicals when they refuse to alter their data. Marc Lappe was one of these people. While Working at Stanford Research Institute, he was not able to bring himself to fudge date supporting the hypotheses that one of the big pesticide Manufacturers wanted to have proven. (I forget if it was RoundUp or malathion dta he ws analyzing at that time.) Marc Lappe went on to found his own lab and to be come an ardent crusader for the Precautionary Principle. He died in the last few years of cancer. his son is the genius behind Guerrilla News Network and continues to follow the more independent way of looking at news and data that his father had taken as a crusade.

Another man of interest to me Warren Porter PhD. Both Lappe and Porter are people I have had lengthy talks with. Bob Simon, PhD, was a forensic witness in terms of his formal testimony and analysis regarding the damaging effects of various pesticide-related toxins. He phoned me in 2000 or 2001 because he wanted me to know of material evidence presented BY MONSANTO in a court case that he had been involved in. In this court case, various Monsanto records were forced to be unsealed. These included the MOnsanto paperwork revealing that back in the 1970's, when Monsanto applied for its license to sell RoundUp as an over the counter pesticide, they Lied through their teeth, and left out the material fact that formaldehyde was part of the RoundUp formula. Had the EPA known this in the early 1970's, I doubt that the product would have been licensed.

[HuckleB]

18. Sounds like a fine discussion to have around drinks.

If you're actually trying to get to the bottom of something in the real world, not so much.

[HuckleB]

13. As with your OP, you are picking and choosing your "evidence."

The very astute response to that single post:

"pec, they stopped the trial because the placebo leg was dying at a higher rate than the treatment leg. It is unethical to continue a trial when one of the legs has a statistically significant higher death rate. That is why the trial was stopped when p=0.02.
If the trial were continued, more people in the placebo leg would have died. That isn’t what they signed up for. That isn’t what the clinicians signed up for, continuing an experimental trial when it is known that one leg will die at a higher rate than the other.
Yes, statins can have side effects. Most people would rather avoid death than avoid the side effects of statins."

[truedelphi]

17. And you aren't?

BTW I was revealing what I personally thought was a most interesting comment.

That is not cherry picking. That is reporting what I saw as being pertinent. You can choose some other comment.

[HuckleB]

19. One who truly wants to dig into the big picture and the accurate picture doesn't do that on purpose.

Picking a random response, out of context is exactly why so much misinformation is pushed in science and health discussions. And, yes, it is cherry picking.

If one actually is honest with oneself, and questions each piece, one can have an honest discussion, and even find some understanding. If obvious cherry picking, such as with the OP, is the name of the game, it's hard to get there.

[truedelphi]

24. Oh please, No one can respond to ALL points of a matter at once.

Except of course, I take it, for you.

Your logic has now lead to me invoking the dreaded IGNORE!

You will be among the names my computer will not dare to name. (You join ranks with two others. I have been on DU for five years and that is how many other illogical people I have nominated for that post.)

[HuckleB]

26. That's not what I'm saying.

But whatever excuse you need to run with anecdotes as evidence, and ignore the scientific process... And by the way, logic is not your forte, as evidenced by this OP and your responses on this thread. Look into intellectual honesty, and see if you can work toward that end. I find it useful, but since I find it useful, you'll probably reject it automatically.

Bye.

:hi:

[Chemisse]

31. That's so funny - I have 3 I ignore also

I wonder if they are the same three, all of whom frequent the Health forum.

[HuckleB]

35. I suspect you don't want to see the evidence they bring to the table.

[trotsky]

44. Nor did she like being exposed for her belief that...

vaccinating for the sake of protecting the weakest among us wasn't necessary - that they just need to take precautions for themselves.

I will never forget that noxious bit of libertarian puke. On DU. Ugh.

[HuckleB]

45. Indeed.

I think I tried to forget about that one.

[trotsky]

46. I don't think I'll be able to forget it.

Not many things on here literally drop my jaw, so I don't have much trouble remembering those that do.

[truedelphi]

47. They very well could be the same three.

When every single time you propose a talking point, someone starts screaming that you are not PROVING anything, one has to wonder. A proposed talking point is just that - and to have to continuously saying, i am not offering PROOF in this piece of writing, I am talking about discussing a matter.

A person gets tired of wearing a :tinfoilhat: especially given that nothing the attackers have ever written has ended up in the United Nations' records as source material outlining a problem. (When I do start offering up the collected proofs of real authorities on subject matter, I am given serious consideration by those who matter.) I am a damn good researcher, and when they have 300 blogs citing their collections of research, they can PM me to offer PROOF that they have standing in a world that matters.

And these attackers have gotten how many awards from local environmental groups for exposing the PROVERBIAL that these multi-nationals have done to us?

But in any case, very good to meet you Chemisse. :hug:

[HuckleB]

48. That's some redefining of the anecdotes you offered here.

A couple anecdotes do not make a safety question.

What's clear is that when you can't answer the valid questions of others, you throw a temper tantrum and block that person.

In other words, it's time for you to take a long look in the mirror.

[Chemisse]

59. Sadly, some people can't enjoy a good discussion,

Present new or different ideas, or offer an argument against an OP, without being rude and abusive, particularly here on the health forum.

Attacking people in ways that are hurtful is certainly not my idea of fun. I may not agree with everything you said, but I do have the decency to respect your thoughts on the subject and respond accordingly.

[HuckleB]

60. So what's your excuse?

[HuckleB]

8. Book Review: Triumph Of The Heart, The Story Of Statins

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=437

[HuckleB]

15. Statin Safety in Perspective -- Maximising the Risk:Benefit: Risks of Statins

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/496431_4

An Assessment of Statin Safety
http://www.ajmc.com/supplement/managed-care/2006/2006-10-vol12-n11Suppl/Oct06-2381pS310-S317

The safety of statins in clinical practice Review
http://www.natap.org/2007/HIV/060807_01.htm

Evaluating statin safety
http://www.healthcarerepublic.com/news/759622/Evaluating-statin-safety/

Statins: Areview of benefits and risks.
http://www.tcd.ie/tsmj/archives/2007/Statins.pdf

[saracat]

20. K+R My husband refuse to take stains for exactly these reasons.

Thanks for posting this!

[HuckleB]

21. What reasons?

Anecdotes?

[saracat]

23. No. He doesn't believe they are safe. Read the article.

[HuckleB]

25. I read the articles. They're based on anecdotes.

The science makes it clear that they're quite safe for most people, and that the risk-benefit analysis makes not taking them more dangerous for those who are in the group that can benefit from them.

Try checking out the articles I've posted. Just to challenge yourself and your husband. Why not? What do have to lose?

[saracat]

29. Nothing. I willask him to him read them. For the record, his doctor wanted him to take them

My husband agrees with the OP.

[HuckleB]

33. So your husband is not using logic and actual research in his risk-benefit analysis?

[saracat]

37. Excuse me? I do not need to defend my husband's reasoning to you.

That is an incredibly insulting comment.

[HuckleB]

41. So accuracy and questions are insulting?

Only if you don't care about accuracy, and/or are easily insulted.

[truedelphi]

28. Among the very small number of people I speak with on a monthly basis

I have one close friend whose father had a totally stiff neck, then upper body paralysis after taking statins. he died two years later.

I now have a girl friend who I met at the health food store, two weeks after her statins brought her to such horrid neck pain that she started to live on pain killers.

Her situation has deteriorated. Her doctor keeps urging her to keep on the regimen of taking the cholesterol lowering drugs. She won't. She also is no longer able to get out of bed.

I will be urging her to get her medical records before they are mysteriously "lost."

As far as "anecdote" or "anecdotal" - this nonsense is one of the Dumbing Down and Neceassary Propaganda efforts of the Big Medical/Big pharma people to force us to not consider our own experiences and observations. They may call these incidents only "anecdotal" - but such observations used to be considered "inductive reasoning." (note in the beginning of the movie, Avatar" the lead scientist tells Jake the importance of writing up his daily experiences on the planet as "they will form a record and reference for the scientists to consider."

And no, only one or two such experiences does not PROVE anything. But once you get ten thousand, it should prove something, if such data were indeed considered by scientists or researchers who are independent of the overall Corporate Control by the Greedy and Dishonest. Were the Big Monied Interests not fudging the data that relates to such observations, we would actually know a lot more about the statin health risk to benefit situation.

[trotsky]

22. How safe is aspirin? How safe was ephedra?

How safe is water?

[EvolveOrConvolve]

30. Source 1 = anecdote; Source 2 = anecdote

Source 3 = I won't read because it links to an IP address instead of a resolved URL.

I take statins and haven't had any problems. I'll bet at least one other person here at DU has taken a statin without any side effects. That would make two anecdotes to counteract your own anecdotes.

[HuckleB]

34. This is one bizarre thread.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

36. Agreed

I guess the conspiracy to kill us all has now spread to our family doctors. :shrug:

[trotsky]

43. Yeah the IP address deterred me as well.

Never know what crapware site you might end up at. No thanks.

[Chemisse]

32. My doctor just suggested I quit taking statins

Because my CPK levels have run high for the last few years, no other problems though.

What I find disturbing is that, hailed as an almost miracle drug, there was a push to have statins prescribed to healthy people, as well as a push to make it over the counter (the FDA denied this request).

Thankfully, sober minds prevailed.

[nickinSTL]

38. as long as it's just statins...

I suppose I'm safe.

Not to say this isn't important.

However, for me, having low HDL is my problem, and statins aren't the best treatment for that, so I'm not on them and probably won't be.

[Duer 157099]

40. I took myself off statins, and my doctor is fine with it

To doctors, patients are statistics, so they pay attention to statistics.

But I am an anecdote, so I pay attention to anecdotes.

[mzmolly]

61. I'm sorry I saw this too late to rec.

My aunt lost her ability to walk. I can't help but wonder if Zocor played a role?