Bucking the consensus view.

[Vagabond]

"Everyone older than 40 should be on statins" seems to be the parrot cry of the media, orchestrated by the drug industry.

 

"You must reduce your cholesterol levels" is the reason given

 

Why ?

Reduce levels to what ? I wondered - it seemed to me that "desirable" cholesterol levels were unachievable without medication.

 

Are these statins really necessary ? I pondered. Medical consensus seemed to say "yes", but there were also dissenters

 

Vagabond maxim : -

 

"Show me any form of human activity, diet or medication and I will find you a doctor that says it is good for you, a doctor that says it is bad for you, and a religion that forbids it"

 

Its called having an open mind.

 

Anyway, I took these statins, and noticed my muscles seemed to be getting weaker. At first I put it down to advancing years, but it rapidly got worse - so that last October I was struggling to walk 100 yards, and that only at the price of intense pain in the leg muscles.

 

So I stopped taking the statins. It was a long road back, but strength has returned to my legs, so that a three-mile walk over rough ground is again possible.

 

Today I had my bi-annual medical check-up.

 

To my surprise, my cholesterol levels were LOWER than they were seven months ago when I was on statins.

 

So not only did the statins threaten my mobility, the bloody things didn't even lower my cholesterol !

 

Doc has now marked my records "Does not tolerate statins" Whether he means that in the physiological sense, or just as a comment on my scepticism he didn't say

[Phone]

Vagabond,

 

We can only hope Sportsman doesn't see this one. It will be like re-charging his battery - again.

 

As for myself, I always take the dope the Dr. gives me until I feel it is more harmful than helpful (or becomes un-necessary, i.e. pain meds). I suspect modern medicine is like early medicine - 70 - 80% in the mind anyway.

 

I believe the Hippocratic Oath starts something like, (I'm making this up) "I will prescribe for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and do NO harm to anyone." I don't think they kill you on purpose, just kill you by accident sometimes.

 

Phone

[Newt]

I did the same a few months ago Vagabond. Not much change in the muscles but I have a bit more energy and have been able to drop the belly medicine I had needed for a few years. Before that, if I left the belly meds off for a day or two it felt like something was inside and trying to eat its way out.

 

To be honest, I'm not sure exactly why I let a doctor talk me into ever starting the things since the results of the cardiac calcium scoring tests I've had remain excellent so whatever cholesterol is circulating around in there hasn't been causing any problems.

[Now there's a right un.]

Statins are just the lazy fix and have different side affects for different people.

In most cases excercise and good diet does the same job.

However, the 50 stone slob who likes playing his PS3/Xbox whilst wading through 30 or 40 pizzas a week may disagree.

 

My friend was prescribed statins last year and suffered some very unpleasant side effects.

 

Very loose stools. Orange stools with a very pronounced odour. Bouts of lethargy. Stomach cramps. Loss of appetite.

Loss of labido.

[DavyR]

The problem with most medical research is that the results are essentially meaningless at the level of the individual patient. Until such time as individualised treatments are made possible by advances in genetics, the "scattergun" approach is going to benefit some patients (maybe) but not others.

 

I base my own unwillingness to take pharmaceuticals on the following:

 

1) Everybody has to die of something - if heart disease or a stroke doesn't get you, it's likely that cancer will. Or something else you hadn't anticipated.

 

2) Genealogical research reveals the extent to which long life and good health runs in families (or not), irrespective of the interventions of doctors, herbalists or wise women.

 

3) The obituaries page of the weekly British Medical Journal shows that members of the medical profession die of exactly the same diseases and at exactly the same wide range of ages as the rest of us.

 

4) All drugs that actually do anything at all (i.e. not homoeopathic ones) have side effects, some of which may result in a worse quality of life than if they had not been taken in the first place.

Edited May 23, 2012 by DavyR

[Steve Walker]

4) All drugs that actually do anything at all (i.e. not homoeopathic ones) have side effects, some of which may result in a worse quality of life than if they had not been taken in the first place.

 

Although, even drugs which don't do anything at all can have side effects:

 

(there is the odd swear word in this)

 

Youtube Video ->

[chesters1]

lots of money in drugs ,lots of nice backhanders getting them on the market does it matter quite a lot are uneeded?

thalidomide the wonder drug had a far longer life than most think it was just rebadged but stricter guidelines used ,from anti morning sickness to leprosy the wonder drugs advertising was wonderful and no doubt back handers aplenty to keep it on the market

all drugs are dangerous to a degree some worse than others but once the financial aspect overtakes the medical aspect they're far more dangerous

 

my mrs pain killers have been changed to a cheaper version ,she got her original ones as the pharmacy had ran out of the new cheap ones ,the ingrediants were the same but strangely the wrapping had gone from simple paper to thick foil! why?

are the drug companies making common drugs simply "upping" the wrapping to get a premium? ,now aspirins have gone from 60p a hundred to 16p for 16 i think so ,theres more expense in the containers than whats in them!

 

my mum was a "badge" buyer ,none of this common aspirin when she could buy some clone with a nice name on the box ,aspirin is aspirin do you need the nice box to make you feel better ,does a nice colourful box make them work faster .

if you want fizzy aspirin eat cheap ones with a bottle of champers it must make them work better its more expensive therefore better in some eyes

Edited May 23, 2012 by chesters1

[Sportsman]

Vagabond,

 

We can only hope Sportsman doesn't see this one. It will be like re-charging his battery - again.

 

As for myself, I always take the dope the Dr. gives me until I feel it is more harmful than helpful (or becomes un-necessary, i.e. pain meds). I suspect modern medicine is like early medicine - 70 - 80% in the mind anyway.

 

I believe the Hippocratic Oath starts something like, (I'm making this up) "I will prescribe for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and do NO harm to anyone." I don't think they kill you on purpose, just kill you by accident sometimes.

 

Phone

 

Hi Phone, I don't need this to recharge my batteries.

I think your version of the Hippocratic oath should read "I will prescribe for the good of my patients according to my ability and my judgment and the amount that the pharmaceutical companies reward me. I am not particularly bothered about doing harm, if it happens it happens.