Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Shadyglade]

The trouble is that there is a growing number of mainstream doctors and scientists who would dispute this. You must do whatever feels right for you. I would never try to diswade you from that. However my own research has persuaded me that I will never take statins.

[Dancinggirl]

If they found way to give every women even a little oestrogen with fewer side effects and risks, then statins might not be necessary - I believe it's only after menopause that we become less able to process cholesterol?? For many it's the retched progesterone that stops us using HRT and it's only the combined HRTs that bring a small risk of breast cancer.  If they could find a way of stopping the uterine lining from building up without side effects - I would certainly be a happy bunny as I would still be using a small dose of oestrogen to gain the health benefits.
The general health benefits of a bit of oestrogen (which is basically a supplement, not a drug) is surely a more attractive option - statins only stop the cholesterol whereas oestrogen can prevent bone density loss, urogenital atrophy, protect the heart, maintain the muscles, skin and joints etc. so why are doctors still so anti HRT? There is only a tiny risk of BC in our 50s. Based on these benefits surely every women aged 50-55 should be advised to use HRT for at least 5 years?
My recent experiences with drugs e.g. PPIs, Amitriptyline and even Ibuprofen or codeine, has made me very wary of ever taking any drug again. For me the side effects and consequences of these drugs far outweigh any benefit.
My mother has just turned 90 and apart from developing vulva cancer aged 79, she is in better health than all her children. Vulva cancer occurs mainly in women over 65 - logic tells me that urogenital atrophy might have something to do with Vulva cancer emerging in our 60s and 70s!!! Should every women be pressured into using local oestrogen once menopause hits? Based on the premise that we should all be taking statins, surely local oestrogen should be routinely prescribed to reduce and prevent bladder and vaginal problems in the long run? 
 -  “is it me” ( as Terry Wogan used to say) or are we too obsessed with taking drugs, “just in case”.   DG x

[Shadyglade]

Just to illustrate my point listen to this interview (only just over 10mins).

http://doctoraseem.com/patients-guinea-pigs-dont-even-know/#more-767

And for anyone who missed this on one of my other threads and might be interested (considerably longer but well worth it)

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/04/15/a-talk-by-aseem-malhotra-to-the-european-parliament/#comments

Also, with particular regard to STATINS (only a short one)

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/statin-nation-the-documentary/

[Loo53]

I was fine until I reached 62, then I had heart surgery for arythmia caused by a UTI, cholecystectomy, pre-barretts oesophagus on 4 yearly surveillance for that, hiatus hernia, epigastric hernia, AV, lichen sclerosis, etc and I'd kept myself fit for years,who knows what's round the corner health-wise but I still workout at the gym several times a week...you just gotta keep going!  ;

[Wilks]

The trouble is that there is a growing number of mainstream doctors and scientists who would dispute this. You must do whatever feels right for you. I would never try to diswade you from that. However my own research has persuaded me that I will never take statins.

But it does appear that you are trying to dissuade people from taking statins, given the number of posts you've made about them recently.
I'm hoping to avoid them myself as I had very low LDLs and high HDLs because of the amount of sport I do. However, there is a direct link between menopause and increased cholesterol, and each individual should consider their whole cardiovascular risk profile when making decisions about medication.

[Shadyglade]

Absolutely right. Everything should be taken into account. That is why I have tried to put links out there so people can do their own research. Unfortunately our GPs are generalist. As CLKD pointed out one of her doctors did not know how statins work. That's not good. Ultimately we as individuals are responsible for our own health.

[Daisydot]

The thing that set alarm bells ringing for me was despite the fact that when I was on statins a few years ago I had awful side effects and had said this to my gp last week he still offered me statins and tried to persuade me to go on them.why wasn't I offered a dietary sheet with advice on how I could lower my cholesterol and why wasn't it flagged on my medical notes that I had previously had a bad reaction to statins,very worrying.They just seem to be hell bent on prescribing them regardless so I'm not convinced they're doing it in my best interests there's definately ulterior motives.
He then said to me well your good cholesterol is high so I suppose they'll cancel each other out??

[Shadyglade]

Some of the more important side effects are not always pointed out to patients. For instance that statins serious deplete Q10 so a supplement should be taken. Also they they can be detrimental to the liver so a liver function test should be done before prescribing and at regular intervals after. I know someone who ended up in hospital with liver damage because this was not done.  The byword of doctors is 'do no harm'. Apparently.

[dangermouse]

Another issue with cholesterol is that it's function is largely protective and as we get older it will naturally rise. By bringing it down you could be doing more harm than good, whilst we wait for this information to filter down to the National health service, like the long wait we had re saturated fat being healthy after all. This information was in the domain 20
years ago, if not earlier!

Although the statins companies will obviously make every effort to get that information blocked.

Forums bring together quality research versus the doctrine research so it's really up to us to either not concern ourselves with it, as you may be perfectly fine with what you take and the doctrine may not be so far off, or you question it and go off-road in your quest for optimum health.

[CLKD]

With the info on here I can go to our GP and ask ........ husband and I saw different GPs the same week; him for the over 65's NHS health check.  I went for blood tests as I was really++ tired and it came back low VitD which I had suspected.  The high cholesterol freaked out that particular GP  even though it 's been 7 for 10+ years.  She was cross that my usual GP hadn't raised issues ......... and was insistent.  It was when she didn't know how they worked that I went back to my usual GP.  Himself decided to go the lose weight and alter diet route for 3 months in which time the GP looked into statistics etc. on our behalf. 

So currently I take: 5mg AD and statins by mouth at breakfast; a betablocka at night plus 10mg AD; Nurofen as necessary.  Rennies at night when reflux takes over.  Otherwise ......... Himself doesn't take much either, other than the statin at breakfast. 

I think that initially I would be inclined towards taking medication as prescribed to get rid of the initial problem but to query the whys and how long is this necessary as I improve ;-)

[Joaniepat]

Dangermouse, your comments re the protective effects of cholesterol and a natural rise as we get older are the very reasons I decided not to take statins any more. My cholesterol levels were not particularly high and would have fallen within range had I been younger.

You are correct about the length of time it takes for research to filter down to NHS guidelines and the vested interests of the drug companies. We have a responsibility to do our own literature searches before taking any drug that is just doled out in the way that statins are.

JP x

[Daisydot]

Great informative posts ladies thank you xx

[Wilks]

Whilst I'm not defending statins and I much prefer a healthy lifestyle to drugs every time, I've seen so much misinformation shared on the internet regarding health issues and medication. There is so much stuff out there, including quality science in peer-reviewed medical journals BUT also quackery, articles with no basis in science whatsoever, and yet others trying to sell an “alternative” product by criticising mainstream medicine and doctors.
I'm not defending all doctors, but just giving some words of caution about taking random advice off the internet. I've been called every imaginable insult on numerous occasions when I've challenged people who spread complete nonsense about cancer and its treatment.

[CLKD]

One needs to take into account who is funding research too  - "Sugar is good for you" - in the 1970s, yep, funded by British Sugar Corporation.  Who was I to argue 

[Shadyglade]

Wilks I know what you mean. However all my links are kosher and from NHS doctors. One is a well respected London cardiologist.