My husband had been on statins for some years and gradually his feet became numb to the point where he could not drive. I am a (retired) medical biochemist and I started to look into the drug and its side effects and discovered that it blocked the formation of cholesterol but also CoQ10 which is essential for muscle activity. We added CoQ10 to his medication without much immediate effect. He then developed gout and searching through the medical literature I found many reported cases of gout in patients on statins. By this time he had developed atrial fibrillation and the cardiologist was very keen to keep him on statins although his cholesterol at this point was 3.5 and he was aged 76. Further searching of the literature found reports of mortality rates of patients over the age of 75 with low cholesterols. Fortunately he had kept records of his cholesterol levels and his symptoms over the years (he is a research engineer by training) and decided to come off the statins. His gout disappeared immediately, the numb feet (peripheral neuropathy) are improving with acupuncture treatment and Vit B6 and his only problem now is recovering from the side effects of Amiodarone which was prescribied for his atrial fibrillation. Ann W3
Strange - I discussed statins and "cardiac events" with my cardiologist - I had had horrendous muscle problems within 10 days of starting a statin, and that at half dose, so I stopped taking it. As far as she was concerned the atrial fibrillation, which had been the basis for the medics (not the cardiologist) starting the statin in response to a raised cholesterol, did not count as a "cariac event". Here in Italy the primary consideration for a/f is anticoagulation. Mine was sufficiently bad to require medication to control it and BP but that is fine, no side effects I can identify (Losartan, bisoprolol and propafenone).
If the medics are happy when someone with a REALLY elevated cholesterol achieves 7, why is there such a drive to keep an otherwise relatively healthy 75 year old at 3.5? Which, there is a fair amount of evidence to suggest and as you found, isn't very healthy.
It is truly sad that after so many reports regarding statins; side effects, NICE is continuing to bury its head in the sand.
The average GP is very poorly trained in respect to this drug and therefore will use their Qrisk assessment forms to decide for them. The whole idea of just looking a total (serum) cholesterol, is rather naive.
Have a look at this link; there is no evidence that cholesterols 'save' lives.
The reported side effects are just the tip of the iceberg, I think. Many people on statins do not make the connection between the drug and their aches and pains.
We need more people like your husband that can use their analytical skills to make sense of the statins invasion.
Thank you Ann for your very informative post. I had a cholesterol reading of 9 and was scared almost to death by my doctor telling me I'd have a stroke before I left the office if I didnt take statins immediately. Within a few weeks of starting Simvastatin I could hardly walk, so I went back to the doctor very scared about what was happening. He changed my prescription to Atorvastatin and again a couple of weeks later I was waking during the night in such pain that no amount of pain killers were helping. I was so frightened one day I called an ambulance as I couldnt drive to get to the A&E department. They were the ones who told me it was the statins causing it, I hadnt connected it before and my doctor certainly hadnt warned me. When I went back to my GP after the hospital occurrence he still wouldnt believe my muscle pain had been as a result of statins and said I must not stop taking them otherwise I'd die. To be honest I wanted to die due to the pain I was in. I was sitting in his consulting room crying with fear thinking what the heck do I do, if I dont take them I'll die if I do, I'll be disabled and want to die. I bucked up the courage to walk out and flushed the remainder of the prescription down the toilet. The pain started to ease off within a week and is improving all the time, although some still remains a year later. I do however now worry that at any minute I'll have a stroke but I couldnt bear to go back to feeling that bad again, even with that threat hanging over me. The more I read the posts on these forums the more reassured I am that maybe I won't just drop dead due to my high cholesterol. I don't have high BP or high blood sugar or any other symptoms of heart disease, just the high cholesterol. Thank you again for such a well written post on the subject.
I would assume someone calling themselves loxie is female. The other point Ann didn't mention, because it wasn't applicable to them, was that for women with no history of a "cardiovascular event" there is no protective effect of taking a statin. There is if she has had a heart attack or stroke, there is for men with high cholesterol whether they have had one or not.
But I'm with you - if you felt as I did after just over a week of atorvastatin then the risk of death by cardiovascular event was far preferable. And yes, it took me about a year to get back where I had been before.
The thought of everyone over a given age being inveigled into taking these things scares me to death. I want to know that EVERYONE who is supporting it does not have shares in their production.
Not just in Italy but everywhere the primary medication for atrial fibrillaltion is anticoagulants - usually Warfarin - because with a/f there is the possibility of blood not moving through the heart valves smootly and this may allow it to clot and thus cause a blockbge. The anticoagulants prevent this happening. Some medics are more concerned with treating numbers than treating patients so a raised cholesterol is something they can focus on and do something about whether it is relevant or not.
Thank you Eileen. Yes I'm a 59 year old female (just over 57 when first prescribed). I have no other cardiovascular issues whatsoever, I was very shocked to hear of my elevated cholesterol, particularly as my diet is very low in saturated fat as I don't eat meat.
It is very interesting to hear that you have been through a very similar experience, it really does make me feel less 'guilty' about making such a decision against my doctor's advice, the stress of worrying about my actions was probably just as likely to cause a heart attack as my cholesterol issue.
I dont mistrust my doctors but I do now check on these forums about health issues and then use the information to make sure I ask the right questions next time I visit the doctor, which I wouldnt have done before. I feel so much more empowered since I found posts like Ann's and yours. Thank you both so much again.
Try reducing the sugar and other simple carbs in your diet - that may do the trick. I have lost a lot of weight and am more active than I was able to be at the time of the "cholesterol panic" - I have an arthritis/rheumatism and am on pred as the only useful medication for it which in and of itself can raise cholesterol. But the primary change I have made is no sugar, not even much fruit, and almost no flour. I don't eat wheat anyway - I itch too much for it to be worth it - so it wasn't too much of a change. But there are theories that simple carbs are the devil and it is easy enough to try. Fat comes in the form of olive oil and butter - nothing made in a factory! Cholesterol down to normal - with a high HDL to boot.
I am so pleased that something I said has given you comfort and you are to be congratulated on your courage in flushing away the statins. Cholesterol is just one of the risk factors for stroke or coronary diease and it seems to be the only one you have. Quality of life is important and we have to make choices but I don't feel that statins should be included in your range of choices given your experience. There are other ways of reducing your cholesterol and there are lost of diets which you can find on the web. There are also drugs not like statins but drugs which prevent you absorbing fat. To be honest my husband tried them and he coudn't tolerate them - not from any pain but because he couldn't enjoy his food. Plant sterols are effective and you can get them in products like Benecol either using the spread - and there are several spreads which say they reduce cholesterol - and Benecol also has a drinking yogurt containing plant sterols which helps and are pleasant to take. Hope this helps.
Yes, I know why the rat poison (I too was a biochemical medicine person!) - what I meant was that they don't go for the cardioversion first and foremost and everything is kept fairly simple. And the cardiologists were the ones who were least concerned.
In the UK I had a few friends who were admitted with rampant a/f episodes - and sent home on, at best, aspirin. They had to push for anything more. Here you don't get out of the hospital until appropriately adjusted on something - as my husband discovered when they found, on his birthday, that he has exercise triggered a/f. He was already on warfarin because of a protein C deficiency so that was fine - they let him home!
Excellent advice. Many experts beginning withYudkin believe that sugar is the killer not cholesterol- but try telling that to the pharmaceutical companies!!!
I too have arthritis, ankle and thumb joints and am always looking for things in my diet that have anti-inflammatory properties as my system won't tolerate NSAIDs for the arthritis pain. I don't eat much sugar, I really dont have a sweet tooth but I'll plead guilty on wheat as I make my own wholemeal and spelt bread which I love and I'm sure I eat too much of it, I'll try cutting down on that. I also admit to having butter in my diet although I have cut it down to a fraction of what I used to have. I don't touch margarine or spreads as they just taste like plastic to me, unfortunately even Benecol and the others that claim to lower cholesterol 
, but I'll try the yoghurts - we eat a lot of yoghurt as I use it in cooking a lot as well as for breakfast. My weight isn't really an issue, probably could do with losing 6 or 7lbs but I'm 5'9 and size 12/14 so approx height/weight appropriate. I looked into the over the counter fat absorption drugs one can buy but read they cause diarrhoea etc., not something I'm willing to risk I'm afraid. I have probably become somewhat obsessive in trying to find more natural alternatives to statins and honestly thought I was becoming some kind of new age nutter in my campaign to find my non pharmaceutical miracle cure so it's lovely to find a bunch of like minded people on here.
Nothing wrong with butter - far healthier for you than that plastic muck and even the doctors are finally realising some of the dietary problems are because of the low fat mantra and substituting good natural products with so-called healthier alternatives which aren't - but they are still in thrall to the food manufacturing industy! If you buy any cakes and biscuits at all or sweetened yogs rather than natural then you are taking in sugar, lots of it. Being allergic to wheat makes you read labels VERY closely, believe me, and the places you find it and sugar in are mind-boggling!
I hear you about the hidden sugars. Because I really don't like sweet food of any kind, I'm continually hunting down stuff without added sugars and it's nigh on impossible. I buy something that to all intents and purposes shouldnt have sugar in it, then I taste it and think ugh that's way too sweet, check the label and there it is, sugar. I usually make my own coleslaw but one day I bought some as I didnt have time and one mouthful later I was spitting it out. It had a HUGE amount of added sugar - for heaven's sake who puts sugar in coleslaw?? It's really difficult finding stuff with no sweetening because even when there's no sugar they tend to put artificial sweeteners in it and I frightened myself to death reading about how dangerous aspartame is. It's so confusing. One article I read said tomatoes and peppers arent good for arthritis and I use a lot of them in my cooking, then another listed foods good for anti-inflammatory properties and tomatoes and peppers were right there at the top. Who to believe eh.
I don't think NICE is burying its head in the sand - that is too kind a statement. It is said that more than half the committee who made the recent statins recommendations have connections that could be described as conflicts of interest. I haven't seen the documents but I can well believe it.
The main reason the figures they work on are skewed is that the yellow card system isn't used properly. GPs think that because someone has a severe side effect that is already known they don't need to report it - which removes the whole point of the scheme. Unless EVERY adverse effect in the general population is reported the true incidence will never be known and they will continue to believe it is "only a small number". And, as you say, the connection is rarely made.
There is a hospital group in either Seattle or Vancouver, I can't remember which just that the person who told me is from one or the other, which has simvastatin on its forbidden list because of the trouble they believe it causes. And it does actually say in the data that one known adverse effect is of triggering polymyalgia rheumatica. Mine wasn't triggered by a statin - but a statin made it far far worse.
Tell me about it! I buy almost nothing that is ready-made and eating out is a bit risky, especially in the UK. Here in Italy they know what they have put in their food when you buy from the independent stores. Salt is my real problem rather than sugar - a week on holiday and I have put on weight, not from eating too much but from the salt causing fluid retention! We have given up buying the sausages from the butcher as he was very heavy-handed with the salt and other seasoning.
I found out quite by accident the true facts about why doctors prescribe which statin, regardless of NICE guidance etc. Once a statin hits the 10 yr mark its off patent and the cost per tablet drops to just a few pence. Simvastatin is one of those and thus it's dirt cheap, so the first choice of most doctors, regardless of whether it suits a particular individual given their existing health record. They go for it and if the patient is wise enough to go back and complain, they'll prescribe a different (better) type but which is more expensive. The hope in terms of their practice budget is obviously however that we won't know enough to complain and we'll keep taking the poisonous cheap stuff in blind faith. Managing their budget is thus more important than their patient's long term health - it disgusts me.
They have always prescribed the substance their last rep was singing the praises of - though they denied it. I've worked in medical marketing covering clinical trials long enough to know that they do it - and the honest ones admit it when questioned in the right way. You see it too in BP medications in the UK - amlodipine is handed out as first line. Loads of patients have horrid side effects but are scared to go back to the doctor and ask for something else. There are dozens to chose from so it isn't rocket science
You're so right about the salt too. I dislike salt even more than I dislike sugar. I can't eat takeaway food any more because the level of salt makes me gag, it's like eating soap to my tastebuds. I don't eat meat but occasionally I do buy it to cook for friends coming to dinner and I buy it from a local butcher I know and trust. I bought steak in a supermarket recently and while unpacking it I turned it over and read the label. There was added salt! This wasn't a pre-pared meal or dish, it was just a piece of steak uncooked. Just glad I didn't have to eat it.
Why would you salt steak days in advance? That just draws the juices out. How disgusting!