statins

[Wilko]

Hi

I've been taking statins for  high cholesterol for 5 years. I have recently found that side effects are kicking in. A friend sent me this web address:

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CAE78.htm

I think that this, and other articles on the site, may well be of interest to people being prescribed these drugs. This industry in statins, the biggest selling drug in the world, £20 million per annum in sales...............is it saving lives or making the big drug companies very rich ???

Any thoughts ??

Rgds

Wilko

[Dick Smith]

I'm a long-term statin user as well.

My concern here is that your article is based on the work of one doctor who has been beating this drum for years. He may be right, but the article bears all the hallmarks of selective quotation to 'prove' a false or extreme, unsupported hypothesis.

I have an excellent doctor and she says I need to stay on the statins with some dietary adjustments (eating oily fish/fish oil supplements) to maintain an appropriate level of 'good' cholesterol. I will trust her before I trust something I read on the internet.

Drug companies aren't being made rich by statins as rights have largely run out on them and generic varieties are now available for cheap. To bring in the 'false demand to maintain profits helped by all the doctors in the world (almost) conspiracy' is not helpful and cheapens the argument.

I suggest that people discuss this with their doctors rather than accepting something of the internet, especially as it may be a life-threatening decision.

Incidentally - what are your side effects? Muscle pain?

[Clarkkent]

[quote user="Wilko"]

This industry in statins, the biggest selling drug in the world, £20 million per annum in sales...............is it saving lives or making the big drug companies very rich ???

[/quote]

Statins are not making the big drug companies very rich. They are not under any patent protection and can be made anybody. The ones prescribed in Britain are produced by companies who make generics. £20 million pounds is chicken feed in pharmaceuticals.

My cholesterol levels are very well controlled by statins, and I support the comments made by Dick.

[Wilko]

Hi

Thanks for your responses. Apologies wrong web site try this, check members.       

 http://www.thincs.org/

£20 million should be £20 billion, not chicken feed ! Somebody is making loads of sponduliks somewhere along the line and I find it hard to believe that the drug companies are missing out.

One of the things that seems to come from the above site is that it may well be preferable to have high cholesterol levels than low ones !!! Not just one doctor but many. How do you know that statins are doing you any good, you're alive, or harm ? Liver damage ?

I think that one of the major failings is that generally speaking the medical profession do not take it as their remitt to question the research papers to which they have access regardng field tests on drugs which in the majority of cases are funded by the drug companies themselves. The findings that wine is good for your heart, I understand, was paid for by the french wine industry. More than 60% of these research papers hardly see the light of day, after spending shedloads on research, anything slightly negative will never be widely publicised, if at all, as this will be detrimental to the investors bottom line. This was mentioned tonight on the Beeb with reference to the scandal SEROXAT from your friendly drug company Glaxo.They knew of the drugs side effects in 1997 but didn't tell anyone till 2003. In those 6 years 30,000 prescriptions were issued for this drug annually in the Uk alone. So much for ethical responsibility !!

Voila ! As the statin biz is worth £20 billion do you think that the drug companies will not protect their asset. I find them wholly untrustworthy and their lobbying power and huge wealth will always protect their position.

This is a protectionist conspiracy by the drug companies not doctors, they should have access to the results of all trials.

I only want to know the best course of action to take, it might be life and death, the problem is that it is difficult to find unbiased opinion and fact.

Bon sante

Wilko

 

 

[Dick Smith]

To put your £20m/£20b figure into perspective, the annual turnover in pharmaceuticals is in the region of $600 billion.

The website you point to is not very impressive - I don't know who THINC are exactly beyond a loopy pressure group, but I am more likely to believe the American Heart Foundation, the US Surgeon General, the BMA etc., plus all of the peer-reviewed research which points to the fact that some sorts of cholesterol can cause serious health problems. Your mob claim to be cholesterol sceptics - why not look at the unbiased opinions and judge from those?

Posts like yours are dangerous. On the basis of no science and precious little understanding you try to persuade people not to take treatments which, the general consensus says, may save their lives. Paranoid conspiracy theories like this (remember MMR?) cost lives. Can I point you to this paper

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/332/7555/1453

which rebuts the THINC work in what I believe to be a convincing manner.

Overall I think that this thread should be deleted in case anyone believes it.

[5-element]

Wilko, thank you for your posts and concerns. No doubt that statins are saving lives. Time will tell, just like it has with tranquillizers, o/c, thalidomide, HRT, bi-phosphonates, and many more.

Meanwhile, I am glad to have access to all available information, not just the Quackbusters one. We are all adults (aren't we?) and can make up our own minds, surely there is no need for censorship?

[raindog]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]r.

Overall I think that this thread should be deleted in case anyone believes it.

[/quote]

You mean there are people out there who believe what's written on message boards?

[Quillan]

I'm on statins for my heart problem and have started to suffer from muscle pains. The answer was simple, at your next annual visit to your cardiologist (well in my case) and tell him/her and they will change the drug. There are many statins around and you don't have to take the first one offered (which is normally the cheapest). For long term users you should 'rotate' round the different ones about every 5 years. Personally I am grateful for my statins because they dramatically reduce the chance of me getting a heart attack (not very pleasant I can assure you having had three in a week) and they mean I can eat most of the foods that did before (my quality of life is not impaired to much). If the OP wants to stop taking their statins that's up to them, free world and all that, but don't complain if something goes wrong after. Personally I will carry on.

I don't agree with removing the thread, everyone has the right to talk about these things and put their opinion (even if it is  wrong) as does everyone have the right to contradict it. NEVER take what you read on forums as gospel in cases like this, talk to your GP before doing anything.

[Iceni]

I agree with Quillan. As you seem to have little trust in the drug companies stop taking the tablets.

John

[Wilko]

Dick Smith said "but I am more likely to believe the American Heart Foundation, the US Surgeon General, the BMA etc.," So that's the people who gave Seroxat a clean bill of health then !

" plus all of the peer-reviewed research " paid for by the drug companies !!

Iceni; get a life, start taking statins !

Rgds

Wilko

[Quillan]

[quote user="Iceni"]

I agree with Quillan. As you seem to have little trust in the drug companies stop taking the tablets.

John

[/quote]

Just to make my position clear, you MUST consult your doctor and/or specialist before you stop taking any long term medication. Do not, under any circumstances, stop on your own.

I can tell you now that I ran out of my statins once for a week and after 3 or 4 days the pains in my legs became intolerable, I could hardly stand or walk.

I am not too sure of the prices of statins that are quoted do its difficult to know how th calculation works but the ones I took before (Tahor) were 25 Euros a pack. My new one (Simvastatin) are 71 Euros a pack (one months supply). Experience has shown me that these are very cheap compared to the prices the NHS is charged in fact in the UK its nearly double. This leads me to believe that the drug companies do rip people off or more to the point the NHS. Perhaps, like France, pharmacies in the UK should me made to put the prices on drugs so people are aware of just how much the NHS are being charged. Strangely my Asthma drugs cost much less than the current prescription charge in the UK ( 5 Euros something a go) so I guess it's swings and roundabouts.

[Dick Smith]

Wilko, I am finding your inability to think critically rather worrying, along with your paranoia.

Do you actually know what peer-reviewing is?

[flittle]

One should not close one's eyes to unpalatable facts; there are clearly problems with statins for some users.  My wife, who is no wimp, was in tears from the muscle pains caused by statins; it took a year without statins and supplementation with Q10 for things to return to normal. My wife was one of the lucky ones, for some it never returns to normal.  There are many researchers now who believe that cholesterol is not the problem and that the real problem is inflammation and that CRP levels should be checked, and that inflammation should be treated.  Mainstream medical opinion is dictated by drug companies and one has to ask questions and educate oneself.  Perhaps nobody has heard of the statin Baycol that caused many deaths from rhabdomyolysis, before it was withdrawn from sale. Does transient global amnesia mean anything?

I say to anybody who has contributed to this thread, please go further and do more research; you may be surprised and shocked.  Clearly some opinions stated show a lack of understanding and a bury your head in the sand mentality.

I offer no opinion on what people should do other than to educate themselves.

Please start here:http://www.spacedoc.net/statin_side_effects.html

Frank

[Dick Smith]

Could you enumerate and name the 'many researchers'? And compare their CVs to those who have found benefits from statins?

It is well known that statins cause side-effects in some people. They are life-lengthening for many others - a vastly greater number. Those two facts have to be balanced, it is not an 'either-or' choice.

As I wrote earlier, clear and logical thought is needed here, not anecdotes and cheesy websites created by partial researchers. After all, if it's on the internet it must be true, mustn't it? Especially if it is trying to sell you a book. Must be more serious than the BMA, Surgeon General et al. After all, what do they know?

[flittle]

The purpose of my post is for people to research the subject and form their own opinion. I'll give a starting point for the CRP view: Scott J Deron, D.O., FACC, google will find him.

I do not have the slightest intention of entering a discussion on the rights or wrongs of any opinion. As regards Duane Graveline,M.D he may have a book on the market but there is plenty of free information on the site, if you care to read it that is.

Frank

[Dick Smith]

If you have no intention of entering into a discussion, why on earth did you post at all?

We all just love people who lob a post in and then refuse to discuss it. We call them trolls.

[Pixie Toadstool]

I have worked in the Pharmaceutical Industry for more than 20 years and I would like to clarify a few points.

The newer statins will cost more than the older statins because companies are encouraged to research and develop new and better drugs by our government in the UK (and most developed countries).  So when a new drug is launched and gains a licence (which is a very complex process) the Government agrees a price it will pay the pharmaceutical company in question for the extent of its patent life and when the patent expires it is possible for generic manufacturers to make it (usually about 10 years plus or minus a few years from product launch- it is a bit complicated to explain why it is not an exact time as it depends on when the company files for it).  Generic manufacturers can usually (but not always) make the drug for much less money and many day to day medicines like amoxicillin for example cost the Government pennies to buy.  Simvastatin is generic in the UK and costs the government very little.

GPs in the UK are always encouraged to prescribe the cheapest appropriate medication which is why you may find you have side effects with the first pill you are given - it is probably not as well tolerated as newer and more expensive drugs, so you must go back to your GP and complain about the side effects in which case he/she will probably prescribe a different and better tolerated drug.  There is also an idiosyncratic response in that some people get side effects on one drug for a condition whereas they will tolerate an alternative - no-one knows why this is but there is some research now which indicates it is just to do with individual genetic differences.

I can't think of any drug that doesn't have side effects.  Even placebos have side effects (amazingly) so that any new drug in research will usually be compared to placebo in terms of efficacy and tolerability - you would be amazed at the huge list of side effects caused by placebo and you are probably already aware of the placebo effect which is also unexplained!

I would agree with Dick in that you need to be a responsible patient - don't just believe what the GP says but go and do your own research.  I use the NHS website for any detailed information of trials and the like - you can see it here:

http://www.druginfozone.nhs.uk/home/default.aspx

You can look at the data sheets for products here (shows you what a product is licensed for, who it should not be given to and any side effects and other important information):

http://emc.medicines.org.uk/

NICE also has information and advice for patients on its websites which you will find here:

http://www.nice.org.uk/

As for the politics of the whole thing well you could argue for ever about that but I think you will find that there are a lot of honest, intelligent and diligent doctors out there who are not likely to have the wool pulled over their eyes.  There are some who live in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry, it is true - I have met them but the vast majority of doctors are not like that and this conspiracy theory idea needs to be taken with a large bucket of salt.  A basic grounding in economics would explain why we need the pharmaceutical industry and also why we need the extensive controls against the industry making huge gains at the expense of patient health.

Here endeth another sermon!

Pix

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Wilko"]

Dick Smith said "but I am more likely to believe the American Heart Foundation, the US Surgeon General, the BMA etc.," So that's the people who gave Seroxat a clean bill of health then !

" plus all of the peer-reviewed research " paid for by the drug companies !!

Iceni; get a life, start taking statins !

Rgds

Wilko

[/quote]

Wilko - I'm starting to scream in frustration at your apparent inability to understand the things you keep on about.

Peer-review happens after research is published. It is done in referenced journals. These are not paid for by drug companies. They find experts in the field to verify or otherwise the claims made by the research. This was the approach which eventually discredited Andrew Wakefield - the conspiracy theorist researcher who WAS paid by interested parties to do his research. It is generally a sign that if researchers do not submit their findings for peer review the findings are suspect, or that unverifiable claims are being made.

Why do you assume that if research is paid for by drug companies it is automatically falsified? That may be your own personal view of morality, but I can assure you it is not normal. See comments above about peer-review for safeguards against extravagant or false claims.

From time to time a drug trial will show adverse effects. This is tragic on an individual level for those who suffer, but how else are we to proceed? To create and develop no new drugs? To retreat to the superstition and squalor of the middle ages? What is your answer? Perhaps you could give us your views on why life expectancy is increasing and has increased throughout the period of 'modern' chemical medicines.

Adverse reactions are seen by about one person in 20,000. That means that 19,999 get a benefit. You need to stop and actually think about those numbers for a moment.

You are dealing in simplistic answers which do not, ultimately, further debate at all. I am still concerned that others, as in the case of MMR, who do not understand the complex nature of these matters will believe your posts and reject medications which may well save their lives.

[Pixie Toadstool]

"Adverse reactions are seen by about one person in 20,000. That

means that 19,999 get a benefit. You need to stop and actually think

about those numbers for a moment."

Er where did you get this information Dick?  It is patently untrue - adverse reactions or side effects are much, much more common than that -and depending on the drug can be extremely high.  Here is a table showing the adverse events of Zocor (simvastatin) in one study as follows:

Also even people getting side effects usually get a benefit from treatment (as measured by efficacy).

Pix

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/simva_ad.htm

	ZOCOR (N = 1,583) %	Placebo (N = 157) %
Body as a Whole
Abdominal pain	3.2	3.2
Asthenia	1.6	2.5
Gastrointestinal
Constipation	2.3	1.3
Diarrhea	1.9	2.5
Dyspepsia	1.1	—
Flatulence	1.9	1.3
Nausea	1.3	1.9
Nervous System/ Psychiatric
Headache	3.5	5.1
Respiratory
Upper respiratory infection	2.1	1.9

[5-element]

[quote user="Dick Smith"]

 We call them trolls.
[/quote]

Count me in as a troll, please.

[Dick Smith]

I saw a figure quoted on a medical website of .44 per 10,000.

Interesting that many of the side-effects were more marked with the placebo than with the active agent, in that study. I am assuming that placebo effects were factored out.

[Pixie Toadstool]

Placebo effect is bizarre - I know.  Looking at those figures and if you count the differences between them, overall it seems to me you are more likely to get side effects with a placebo than with simvastatin!!  However, looking at the bases - there were 10 times as many in the simvastatin group than placebo so we can't really compare the two groups.

Another weird thing is that the placebo is more likely to cause asthenia (which includes myasthenia - muscle aches, pains and lethargy - a known statin side effect) than simvastatin.

Pix

[Dick Smith]

[quote user="Pixie Toadstool"]Placebo effect is bizarre - I know.  Looking at those figures and if you count the differences between them, overall it seems to me you are more likely to get side effects with a placebo than with simvastatin!! 

[/quote]

That was the gist of one report I saw.

[Russethouse]

Mr RH takes statins - am I wrong in thinking that most people on such medication have conditions which require regular GP or practice nurse checks ?

Surely the thing to do is do some research and discuss concerns or contra indications/side effects with your own health care professional, who hopefully knows you and your medical history ?

 

[Dick Smith]

Correct. I once had some symptoms which were similar to side effects of statins. My doctor was instantly aware of the likelihood, and took action to check. They weren't, so I went back on them.

There is evidence that altering cholestorol levels through diet alone is rather unlikely, so statins are the first line of defense.