Simvastatin side effect

Thank you very much for your reply, I can't believe the damage this drug is doing to peaple the more I look into it, I just hope to see some inprovement soon now that I stopped taking them 

Part of the problem is that when someone has a problem like you have had the doctor is meant to submit a "yellow card" a report of an "adverse event". But they don't because they think it doesn't matter because it is a known side effect. The point is, however, that it is through such reports that the TRUE rate of a given side effect is recorded. If only a few doctors report it then they think the rate is relatively low - when in fact it may be 1o times as high, possibly even more. It is like an iceberg - 90% of the effect is hidden. We all know what happened to the Titanic!

My wife asked a one time GP to yellow card a drug that had laid her low.

The doctor refused saying it is a well known side effect.

My point exactly - but we can also file a yellow card ourselves. But not enough people know.

How are we able to do this? As more needs to be done about this firstly I will be speaking with my gp on this and if that fails I would  like to submit a yellow card 

Google "yellow card mhra gov" and you will get a link to the site which explains it.

MHRA were very helpful when I twice had questions about a medication I was taking that seemed to vary in effectiveness from time to time..

That's the problem with using a voice recognition program...you can land up with some odd typos....lol

as I was trying to say...I wish you good luck Andy....and although your GP will argue with you please stick to your guns and stop your statins,

How I wish I had done so as I was a very fit 70+ year old female who could walk my labradors before breakfast for 3 miles - no problem and now can hardly cross the room.

Dragon dictate strikes again!!!!! 

All the very best and good luck for the future - it is such a shame they are so adamant about statins and believe the company's figures as gospel. The thought of them being used for all those young otherwise healthy people just makes me cringe. The proportion of NICE advisors who are associated with statin manufacturers is disgusting.

I was very lucky - I stopped them off my own bat but when I told the cardiologist she was fine about it. I had expected she would say I should try another sort but no, she just said I hadn't had a "cardiac event" (my diagnosis was atrial fibrillation and I had been given the statins by the medical people as opposed to the heart people) so that was OK. 

 

In a study published earlier this year, higher levels of both total cholesterol and LDL-C were found to be associated with a reduced risk of death in individuals aged 85 followed for 10 years.

In another study published last year, researchers assessed the levels of cholesterol and risk of death in almost 120,000 adults living in Denmark. The researchers found that having higher than recommended levels of total cholesterol was associated with a reduced risk of death.

For instance, in men aged 60-70, compared with those of total cholesterol levels of less than 5.0 mmol/l, those with total cholesterol levels of 5.00-5.99 had a 32 per cent reduced risk of death. For those with levels 6.0-7.99 mmol/l, risk of death was 33 per cent lower. Even in individuals with levels with 8.00 mmol/l and above, risk of death was no higher than it was for those with levels less than 5.0 mmol/l.

The results were similar for women too. In women aged 60-70, levels of 5.0-5.99 and 6.0-7.99 were associated with a 43 and 41 per cent reduced risk of death respectively.

In individuals aged 70 and over, the results were similar, except here, levels of total cholesterol of 8.00 mmol/l or more were associated with a reduced risk of death too (in both men and women).

In short, we are misguided if we assumed that higher levels of cholesterol are a sign of increased death risk. In older individuals, there is evidence that the reverse is true.

Exactly the point I have been making for the past three years..... we need our cholesterol...or we would die.

Well said brian03294.... Pity this information was not  given out a long time ago - before Big Pharma got a hold over our   medical profesion and brain-washed them (with financial handouts) into believing that their drugs were the greatest things ever invented.  

As I have said elsewhere on this forum -  in a couple of years time when it has been proved that statins are more dangerous than thalidomide ever was - the only people that are going to make money then will be the lawyers - when they  take Big Pharma to the cleaners.  

They're already starting to do so in the USA ....and you know what they say - when the US coughs - the UK catches the cold - eventually!

I believe that in Canada  - in order to mitigate the damage done by the statins, doctors are obliged to give out prescriptions for coenzyme Q 10 along with the statins..... One wonders why we have not followed suit in this country too.... After all the pharmaceutical companies would benefit...LOL

I have told my doctor that I do not want to know what my cholesterol is and I have  refused to have it tested again.

I have had my 3 score years and 10 and remained healthy until I happened to mention to my GP my intermittant (very!) extra systoles .....following which my world was turned upside down because he insisted I take statins....following in depth tests/scans and heaven knows what all - including the inevitable finding of a raised choesterol = 5.9....which I reduced to 5 myself by eating more porridge and taking more exercise 

Need I say more........except I wish I had never uttered!

SO folks - listen to your bodies and forget the tests!

We have been misguided long enough and it is time we stood up for ourselves....!!

 

I tend to think we were misguided deliberately by individuals with a vested interested in selling drugs.  Lord knows what other facts are being deliberately withheld because they might effect sales.  Im sure the pharmaceuticals have seen the study you quote from as well as countless other studies that would shut them down if the news got out.  They must work very hard on stemming the tide of this information before it hits the public.  

It would be nice if medics learnt that "extrasystoles" or the occasional episode of atrial fibrillation do NOT a cardiac event make!!!!!!! I chucked the statins after 10 days - the person who was least bothered was the cardiologist (well, other than me that is!). 

I have seen blood samples where the plasma looked like milk because of the fat in it. I have tested blood samples where the cholesterol was WAY into double figures. Now those patients will no doubt benefit from statins. So will most patients who have had a heart attack or stroke already. And so will some men who haven't. But women who have not yet had a "cardiovascular event" will not. And the benefit is NOT from reducing the cholesterol - it is something else that statins do. That has been shown by analysis of the results of studies. The statin supporters took a different set of the results - you can prove anything with statistics if you are selective...

Perhaps people who have had a cardiac event MAY benefit from taking statins but even that is in doubt Eileen.

Dr Graveline who has himself suffered from the side-effects of statin therapy.... has written very widely on the subject and I have to say what he has written rings of very loud bell with me.

His website is full of patients' histories  that will make your hair curl....  As you say statins  do not reduce cholesterol but they sure can do a lot of damage.... And should be avoided at all costs.  The statin supporters are of course in the grip of Big Pharma  and will massage the  statistics figures accordingly...

Who was it that said " lies damned lies and statistics"...LOL

 

More information please Eileen!   What's the "something else" that statins do?     As a woman who HAS had a heart attack and has given up on statins I'd really like to know what you mean

I'm puzzled by your statement that statins DO NOT reduce cholesterol:  they certainly reduced mine but I've decided that's not worth the side effects.

I'll google Dr Graveline because I'm still looking for an alternative that works

They don't know WHAT it is but studies show that people who take statins who have had a "cardiovascular event" do have fewer re-events. But people who have low cholesterol naturally - so apparently wouldn't be in need of statins - still have a similar rate of re-events. So it most probably isn't lowering the cholesterol that has the effect but maybe some other action these medications have on the cell metabolism. Or even a mechanistic effect in the same way aspirin makes blood cells "less sticky". If they could identify that they could look for another substance that would do the same thing and maybe have fewer side effects.

Overall, for people at risk of a "re-event" statins probably are not entirely bad. It is the concept of using them without good reason I find wrong - medicalising a healthy state. And like most drugs, the statins are different from one another. Most people who can't tolerate one are OK with others. But when someone doesn't tolerate any statin well, they shouldn't be forced to remain on them. And they should not be told a moderately raised cholesterol level will kill them because that probably isn't the case - raised cholesterol is most likely another symptom, not the cause. It is a different matter for the people who have the hereditary hypocholesterolaemia which IS associated with death due to cardiovascular illness at a young age and lowering that cholesterol with statins has a major effect. But their doctors are happy when they achieve a cholesterol level of 7 to 8 - so why isn't that OK for the rest of us? THAT I don't understand.