statins are important for health

sorry to hear about your mum..hope she get better very soon. God bless

There has been much research into high cholesterol and it is made by our own bodies to help the body function and to protect us.  By using statins you are blocking the bodies natural ability to make it and the balance is shifted.  I am not a medical professional, but I would strongly urge people on higher doses, based on my own experience, to question the efficacy of such a drug and to reconsider taking them if they become ill and as no prescribing doctor will tell you what those side effects might be, read the information leaflet that comes with the tablet and make an informed decision.   

I had a minor stroke last year and was aggressively told at my follow up appointment that it was "only a small one, so stop making a fuss". I was placed on 80mg of Atorvastatin (for the rest of your life or you will die) and within days I couldn't think straight, my short term memory had gone (and is still bad a month after coming off them).  I suffered confusion, depression, anxiety and panic attacks.  I developed breathing difficulties (which have not improved, so my lungs have been damaged and I have been diagnosed with COPD), muscle and joint pain to the point where I couldn't walk from one room to another without breaking out in a sweat and showering was a scary experience because by the time I'd finished my legs were so weak, I could barely stand and was shaking with the effort.  Night cramps in my legs and stomach problems.   My blood sugar levels were raised since my previous blood tests and I was heading for Type II diabetes.    Most of these have improved at varying degrees since I came off the statins.  Now, if I was on 10mg, like yourself, I may not have suffered all those horrible side effects, but when I asked for a review, I was denied, and so I decided (because I do have a choice), not to take them any more.  

All of my blood tests prior to being put on statins showed average HDL and LDL levels with no cause for concern, and my ECG and heart stress tests showed my risk of heart disease within the next 10 years as low. 

So you may ask why I was put on statins?  The morning of the stroke, I had been in hospital for a cerebral angiogram to check the coiling in my head from an brain bleed in 2001 was still intact and I was told before the operation there was a risk of stroke.  Not because of anything wrong with my arteries, but because the catheter they insert can form clots around and within it and the blood pumping around the arteries does the rest bringing that clot to an area where it blocks the artery, in my case, the area where I had the previous aneurysm coiled.  The area of the aneurysm is sealed but still allows blood to flow through, but not clots.  You are awake during the procedure as it is done under a local anaesthetic, and even after the anaesthetic, I felt the catheter scrape against my artery walls, so more anaesthetic was given rather than abort the procedure.  

As for my mum, she is now 86 and in the year since she started the statins has become so ill, there is no return for her and she will not get better.

I am truly sorry that your sister is going through what she is and I hope that her stent operation is successful.  In her case a low dose of statins following her operation may be of benefit to her, but I would urge both you and her to ask your own doctors and specialists whether they would take statins and if not, ask why.

I was originally on a low dose of simvastatin then very swiftly swapped to atorvastatin, there was no noticeable improvement in my issues.  It is to be remembered that statins lower ALL cholesterol, both HDL and LDL and an artificially low overall cholesterol level is clinically proven to be detrimental to many areas of health.  It's the differential that's important - if both 'good and 'bad' cholesterol is high, the risks are very much reduced as opposed to having low good and high bad.  Doctors are given out statins like smarties without any consideration of whether they are actually a suitable medication for the individual's personal circumstances.  If I had any risk of atherosclerosis my BP would also have been raised (a prime indicator) but the fact my BP was absolutely normal was either totally ignored or overlooked in the rush to tick a box and get me on statins along with the millions of other guinea pigs.  I suggest you take a look at Statin Nation - I sure wish I had before being a blind idiot and letting my GP poison me.

one last point - before statins I was HEALTHY - i ate well, i exercised, my BMI was normal.  Due to statins, my weight rocketed, my BP rose, my blood glucose level rose (recorded evidence indicates statins regularly contribute to type 2 diabetes), I could no longer exercise and I became stressed and depressed - I'm more likely to have a heart episode due to those facts than I ever was as a result of only having high cholesterol.  I feel stupid and ignorant for accepting blindly that my GP knew best.  The marketing teams at the pharmaceutical companies were the clever ones.

I agree wholeheartedly with you loxie.   I did have certain risk factors, being overweight, a slightly high blood pressure (put down to white coat syndrome - not liking being at the doctors), my dad died from an ischeimic heart attack and my mum has a pacemaker due to Stokes Adams syndrome, which I am frequently told is not hereditary.  Neither had high cholesterol. I was an ex-smoker but am now nearly 3 years without and my health was fairly good considering.  After my mini stroke, I had to wait in A&E for the stroke doctor to see me before I could leave and when he came it was just to tell me I had to take the statins.  5 minutes - 10 minutes max consultation and hitting me with the pill thing when I was feeling vulnerable and scared.  I have not seen him since and I haven't seen the scans of my stroke just told it was in the occipital area.  What concerns me is that they may have it wrong because from the description in the follow up letter I got, what they are describing is more or less the same as when I had my brain haemorrhage in 2001 and am wondering if (because they no longer have my notes from 2001 because they got lost when they were transferred in a hospital move), they have actually identified the area of the coiling and thought it was a stroke.  No-one seems to have the time or patience to sit down and explain things any more.  When I had my BH they were great.  I had leaflets given to me, was shown the scans and they pointed out where the aneurysm was and how it had been fixed and went out of their way to reassure me.  This time around it was basically "you've had a stroke and you must take these pills for the rest of your life or you'll die - goodbye".  

I'm seeing my doctor tomorrow to discuss why I've come off the statins and will remain off them and I also have a letter typed up for the stroke doctor I saw and have printed off a list of questions I want to send to the neurology department - the main one being why was I sent for a cerebral angiogram when the alternative that was discussed was an MRI/MRA (far less invasive) and what was seen in my previous MRI that prompted that decision.  No-one has told me that and I need answers.  

I had the same scare tactics applied Jan - my GP stated I was a stroke waiting to happen and actually said he'd be surprised if I didnt have one before I even left the surgery! I felt grateful at the time he'd prescribed something to save my life - oh foolish ignorant me.  A TIA (mini stroke) doesnt leave an audit trail as such and TIA's are not always an indicator that a major stroke is imminent.  I have a friend who has had several TIA's and whilst they havent yet found the exact cause they have told her quite categorically it is nothing to do with block arteries or heart problems - it's something else neurological happening and because by the time she presents at the hospital following the TIA there are no lasting effects showing up, it's very difficult to analyse.  If a patient suffers a TIA in isolation to anything else its apparently almost impossible to even state they've actually had one.  You could well be right that what they were seeing was related to your previous BH therefore.  Good luck with your doctor and dont let him/her bully you.

Well my doctors appointment didn't go to plan.  Fifteen minutes late in and I only get 10 minutes.  About 8 minutes of that was my doctor telling me how good statins were and that if she didn't insist on them she was failing me as her doctor.  I said I would no longer take them.  She then tried to put me on a lower dose one of Pravastatin, and I said no.  She did say that it was my choice not to take them, but she would not approve of it, then she tried scare tactics of what happened to a couple of other patients who refused to take them, but I still said no.

When you take into account everything that statins are supposed to help you with, good for heart, prevents further strokes, etc, etc, but they actually destroy muscle, increase appetite, block the making of life supporting lipids or cholesterol as we know it, then it just doesn't make sense.   

I did agree to go back on the Clopidogrel, but if I start feeling ill on those again, I'll be straight off them and will be writing to the stroke specialist and leave my doctor out of the loop because I have totally lost faith there.