atorvastatin

I'm really getting tired of responding to this myth that statins are only "good" after  a heart attack THEY LOWER CHOLESTEROL WHICH IS BELIEVED TO CAUSE HEART ATTACKS AND/OR STROKES so are prescribed for HIGH CHOLESTEROL hopefully BEFORE a heart ttack.

Whether or not the negative effects are worth it is another matter

As Jude has commented, statins are not for 'after' a heart attack specifically.  They are given to patients to reduce cholesterol levels, which MAY result in them suffering a heart episode or stroke, ie as a preventative measure.  In those who have already suffered a heart issue, they are given to maintain lower cholesterol levels.  However, lets be clear here, the previous recommended 'healthy' level for cholesterol was considered to be between 4 - 6 and not requiring intervention at this level.  This has now been reduced to just above 3.  Almost nobody has natural readings at this low point, other than some of those affected by dementia or alzheimers who have been noted to have particularly low cholesterol.  Statins are now prescribed to those without high cholesterol but who are deemed to have a 10% risk of a heart episode/stroke within the next 10 years as a result of either familial (hereditary) history of heart problems or lifestyle.  Sorry to be cynical but to be brutally honest, 10% risk over next 10 years could be almost ALL of the population in the west! This profligate form of prescribing practice helps no-one and causes untold suffering in some.  I have a cholesterol level of 9.  It's hereditary.  Neither lifestyle nor diet can change it - I am healthy, eat a balanced healthy diet and exercise, there are no lifestyle changes I can make that would affect my cholesterol.  Thus its statins or risk a stroke.  Statins disabled me to such an extent, permanently, that I personally have chose to not take them and risk the consequences.  It's a personal choice.  If I had been told I should take them 'just in case' on the basis of a ridiculous calculation of 10% risk in next 10 years OR if I already had relatively low cholesterol, I would have laughed in my doctors face and told him I value my health above the profits of the pharmaceutical companies and basicially to 'get lost'.  Taking a toxic chemical such as a statin MUST be a matter of personal choice and by investigating the benefits against the dangers.  Lowering cholesterol does NOT prevent heart attacks, it reduces cholesterol, which may or may not be a contributory factor in the risk of heart problems.

Good reply.  What's more, there are several references on the internet to a US committee which substantially reduced the "safe" level of cholesterol, said committee having a majority of representatives of pharmaceutical companies on it - around the time statins first became availabile.

Enough said I think .....

Spot on Jude.  In the UK it is the pharmaceutical companies' influencing of NICE who in turn issue prescribing guidance to GP's.  Statins that go 'off patent' after a period of time reduce considerably in cost, thus hitting profits.  Drug companies then have to volume sell to compensate.  This is I'm sure directly linked to the recommended level being reduced and the sweeping across the board prescribing of statins regardless of need.  It's very difficult now for any lay person to have any trust whatsoever in GP prescription practice.  How wrong that people are left floundering as to the best course of action in their personal circumstances.  Instead of good practice and friendly good quality guidance from our doctors, we now have to resort to the internet - which unfortunately is full of misinformation and anecdote and it's hard to sort out the facts from the fiction.

Yep, all too true loxie.   That said, I do know lots of people who've taken statins for years with no negative effects at all, except to their wallets or govt taxes if they have health care cards (Australia).

My past and present GPs have accepted my decision to stop statins, but specialists are another matter, in my experience unable to listen to patients and totally accepting of whatever the drug companies say.    

I'm still amazed at the number of people i come across both on this forum and elsewhere, who don't check even the manufacturers' info sheets before putting yet another medication in their bodies.  We should all be taking more responsibility for ourselves in my opinion.

Spot on gilpill

TO LOWER CHOLESTROL, WHICH IS BELIEVED TO CAUSE, HAERT ATTACK.

In my case, the clogging of coronary arteries, at around 3.4 cholectrol, as recorded in atleast 4 yrs prior to me discovering up to 90%  blockage , because I got a scan done at my own cost, and therefore avoided the heart attack.

Yet I am required to take statin.

Where is any sense in this?

So far I have not heard or read about statin stopping the clogging in the coronary arterie.

I can not be just be a one in billions. There must be many people having the arteries being clogged at relatively low cholestrol reading. What needs is the treatment that can actually stop the the arterie to clogg up.

Not an automatick blind suggestions to take statin which causes the most noticable problem, with muscles. There may be many more that are not as noticable as muscle problems.

Therefore I wonder is are drugs prescribed for a personson's healthcare, or well being?

 

Unfortunately Hirani, although having high cholesterol can definitely lead to vascular problems which may then cause stroke or heart attack, as is evidenced by your case, high cholesterol is not the ONLY reason for blockages and arterial problems.  There are many other factors and causes.  And conversely having high cholesterol isnt always linked with poor heart or vascular health and is not the only cause of arterial plaque.  This is the issue we have with statins.  As you say there is an automatic 'blind' attitude to prescribing them and not enough thought goes into whether statins are either the only or even the best route to take.  No doubt they are very effective in reducing cholesterol, IF that is the cause of the problem, but it often isnt, and your case proves that very succinctly.  Diabetes or high blood sugar can be just as big a culprit with athersclerosis - even those with elevated circulating blood sugar not yet at the level of diabetes can be at risk.  My partner's father has diabetes and has had several heart attacks, yet he has not cholesterol problems and is not on statins. Blood thinning meds for those who can tolerate them are often given and are very effective.  Unfortunately the human body is a very delicate machine and sometimes no matter how well we maintain it, faults occur, the lottery of life regrettably.

Loxie

You are spot on. about lottery of life.

I am a non diabatic.

Not any blood sugar control drug yet, a started to feel generally unwell. went to see a healthcare specialist in alternative medicines.

I was impressed by his routine check up, best in comparision to my own GP surgery.

He checked my bp, listened to my heart, checked my pulse and even prick tested my sugar level.

This was around 11a.m . I ate an apple at around 10.00am that day, yet my sugar level was 3.8. readings used in the UK. very low forany one not normal for someone not on sugar control tablet and had something to eat.

I put it down to the drugs that are given to me.

My anual blood sugar level have always within normal required range.

In comperision to this .....

I have visited my GP surgery for the problem due to madication and not feeling generally well. Not a single time any of the doctors have bothered to touch me. They say you are 62 yrs and this happens to people of your age. This is the level of health care, FROM MY PERSONL EXPERIRNCE.

For matter of interest all the diagonosis and treatment for my healt problem was done privately by me at my own cost. NHS has done Zero for this.

Your prime line of healthcare is YOUR GP. This another lottery. If he is good you get immediate referal and he checks you when you see him. A GP like mine, just looks at you.

To conclude  I have hd blockage, with low Cholestrol and no diabetic history, pesronally or in family. Heart problems ? yes. a family history.

Howver this

What can I say Hirani, you have unfortunately drawn a short straw regarding your vascular family history - I too have the same issues with hereditary cholesterol and heart problems.  It's very unfair especially when you have quite obviously taken care of your health and do all the right things and are otherwise in good shape.  You've done everything you can to help yourself and getting poor service from the NHS must be so frustrating for you.  I'm not medically qualified and can only speak from personal experience but I honestly cannot see that statins are of any use whatsoever to you and seem to be causing more damage than good.  Maybe a direct forthright question to your doctor - asking WHY you need statins when your cholesterol is low and asking them to reply in one sentence without a lot of waffle.  Again, so sorry to hear of your issues and I really wish for a good recovery for you.

Hi Loxie

Thank you for your response.

I am 62+ yrs old have seen lots of ups and down in life.

Lost my dad at the age of 3 and half years.

Was brought up in third world countries and have seen it all.

However when you say "It's very unfair" then life is not always fair to many people.

There is no one to listen to you, for this.

I have already asked,about need to take statin with such a low cholestrol level. No satisfactory answer received so far.

My own GP is absolutely waste of time. In UK adoctor do not have any motivation to take extra care of a Patient. they get padi regadless. If a GP is caring then it is a different matter.

Thanks alot for your good wishes.