• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

'Statins' - nothing but slow poison?

Supernaut

Banned
Joined
Apr 20, 2010
Messages
1,271
My own, first-hand experience of statins;

I moved into Union Court in September 2003, a small block of flats on two floors. I lived there until May 2008

A neighbour was Niall, our front doors were 20 feet from each other on the walkway, so I got to know him pretty well. He was 65 when I moved in, had retired early years before (from the then 'paternalisitc' British Airways), and he was a 'creature of habit', same ablutions every morning, almost always the same supper every night (white fish and steamed vegetables - "God, it's boring"). Liked music, classical mostly (I went with him to the Wigmore Hall a few times) so he used to come round and we'd drink a bottle or two of wine and listen to my excellent hifi.

Sometime about mid 2006 he started saying that his old back injury is giving him grief ("it's crucifying me") and he was getting pain in his joints, particularly wrists, fingers and knees, I'd hear about it almost every time I saw him.

Then he stopped following his old habits, his diet, forgot how to use his micro-wave etc.

Then he started getting a bit erratic. One day he lost his temper with me, the first time I’d ever seen him do it with anyone - I met him on the way out on a damp morning and he was sweeping up the blossom on the wlakway - when I pointed out that it would be easier if it was dry he exploded in a flurry of expletives. I can tell you, Niall was not the sort of guy I'd EVER of expected to see lose his temper.

Another time about midnight I got a knock on the door and it was Niall (who was usually in bed by 10), a bit wild-eyed;

"Mark, I can't take anymore of this, you've got to stop whatever it is you're doing, I can't stand the noises anymore".
Me; "What do you mean? What noises?"
Niall; "You're doing something with the electricity (sic)"
Me; "But I've been sitting reading all evening"
Niall "I can hear the noises it's making and I can't sleep with it ...."

He said something about seeing faint flashes of light with the noises (the people in the flat below him had been renovating for several weeks, might have had something to do with it).

The town has a 'Royal park' (arguably one of the most beautiful in England), occasionally me and Niall went for a walk there together, but Niall began to find the gentle half-mile walk up the hill to the gates to be more and more difficult, and I'd have to slow the pace to an amble.

Anyway, I'd got him to take a few supplements, particularly fish oil, thinking maybe it would help his joint pain (not to mention his BRAIN), but I couldn't really tell if it made much difference.

I've been reading about, i.e. educating myself about fats and oils (fatty-acids is the correct term) since way back (from books - how quaint), long before I got an internet connection. I was already familar with the myths surrounding the "dangers" of cholesterol and saturated fats (and the converse "benefits" of unsaturated ones). But it was the internet that let me read up about statins. There's nothing particuarly complicated or subtle about what they do - they block the action of an enzyme in the liver and thus interrupt a 'cascade' of (normal) processes which includes the synthesis of cholesterol and several other vital molecules. Which is just insane. Substances which cause injury by blocking or interrupting normal functions in the human body are genrerally regarded as poisons.

Want to know what "memories are made of"? They're made by the creation and rearrangement of synapses, the connections between neurons (brain cells), and synapses are made from .... cholesterol. In fact, one of the most common molecules (apart from water) making up your brain is .... guess what?

Niall was unquestioningly trusting and deferential to his G.P. (physician), as are most, and I knew he was taking several kinds of pills, so I asked him to show me what meds he was on - there were three, including (IIRC) the usual - blood pressure, a beta-blocker etc., and sure enough..... Lipitor, 40mg daily. He couldn't remember how long he'd been taking them, thought it might have been "a few months", but later his niece told me he'd been on them for about 15 months, so he'd started them right about the time I'd noticed he'd begun to lose it.

I told him what I'd found out, that he should stop. He listened, but of course there was no way he was going to do it (disobey his doctor? Disobey authority?) - he went back to his quack and got what they call "bland assurances" (he was offered Simvastatin instead of Lipitor). What I had to do was print out some literature, wihch I left with him. He stopped a couple of days later and never took them again.

I'd known him for nearly 3 years before he started taking Lipitor, saw him most days, and I was in a position to see him start to fall apart before my eyes. Even if he was in his late 60's, there's no way someone just starts to age that fast, mentally and physically at the same time. No way.

The bad news is that it can take months or even years to recover from some of the effects, and even worse, some of the damage might be irreversible (mitochondrial DNA mutation - permanent damage to muscle, connective tissue and others).

Not an exaggeration; I reckon statins are probably the most malevolent con ever pulled by the drug companies. They're certainly one of the most profitable - from what I can gather, they're making 10's of billions a year from them globally (I remember figure of 20 billion p.a. mentioned back in 2008, and that was when about 1.5 million people in the UK were on them, it's nearer 4 million now). If and when they finally get brought to brook, the damages they'll end up paying out will be peanuts compared to what they'll have siphoned off health organisations and medical insurers while their patents are running.

Why do they do it? Because "health care" to them is nothing but "disease management", and the bottom line is that the sicker people get the more drugs the pharmas sell and the more money they make. I’m not being too cynical for you, I hope?

Basically, statins are are now being handed out to practically everybody in nations which can AFFORD the usual inflated prices the pharmas charge for patented drugs, for no reason at all other than an arbitrary threshhold for blood-serum cholesterol determined to be "too high", most people being completely unaware of the ubiquity of cholesterol in the body as a whole, or the mechansim by which statins accomplish what they do.

I've recently seen articles in the press in which "experts" (also known as a "pharma-whores") contend that EVERYONE over the age of 40 should be given them, and even more absurdly, that they should added to certain foods as a "supplement" (yeh - we're all statin deficient!). This is obviously nothing but propagandising of the crassest sort, attempting to reinforce the bare-faced lie that statins are a completely benign "wonder drug".

"Have you never had day's illness in your life? Do you suffer rude health, a sharp mind and a limber, flexible body? You must be statin-deficient! Make an Appontment with your physician now and get yourself a daily dose of our new wonder-drug! Statins! - now you too can experience the joys of premature decrepitude!"

What prompted me to post this is that I've recently (for the last 2 years or so) been acaquainted with a man of 55 (oddly enough his name is Neil), not much older than me, who in many ways is like someone 10 or 20 years older. When I visit him in his 2nd floor home, I walk up the stairs and then have to wait for him as he drags himself up them. And here's the kicker - he has no diagnosed physical disabilites and he was a climber/mountaineer for much of his younger life!. The other day I discovered that he too has been taking Lipitor for - he can't remember, he only knows it's been "for ages".

I haven't bothered providing citations, because a search for "statins side effects" will provide so much material that it's hard to even begin to choose one. Amongst much else, you'll find the internet awash with anecdotes similar to mine.

And who should I believe - The Man, or my own lying eyes?

(BTW - I know this is just begging to be moved to the CT forum.)
 
Last edited:
tl;dr

The plural of anecdote is not evidence.

If the side-effects of statins outweigh the benefits of them then this will either be caught in the trial stage as they are certified for new use or as part of the ongoing review.
 
And who should I believe - The Man, or my own lying eyes?

The answer is neither.

Your eyes and other senses, along with your mind, will lie to you; as will men. That is a critical thing to understand.

Believe the objective evidence, not what you think you are seeing through the lens of a rather obvious bias.

Btw, do you have any medical schooling, or are you completely self-taught? Did you have access to their medical records & family history? Do you regard yourself as infallible in your interpretation of what these two men went through?

Not trying to be hostile here. Just hoping to provide some food for thought. :)

Regards, Canis
 
I don't take them because of the increased risk of heart attack. its better to just work in some diet and exercise than to take these.
 
....
Anyway, I'd got him to take a few supplements, particularly fish oil, thinking maybe it would help his joint pain (not to mention his BRAIN), but I couldn't really tell if it made much difference.
... (disobey his doctor? Disobey authority?) - he went back to his quack and got what they call "bland assurances" (he was offered Simvastatin instead of Lipitor). What I had to do was print out some literature, wihch I left with him. He stopped a couple of days later and never took them again.

.... some of the damage might be irreversible (mitochondrial DNA mutation - permanent damage to muscle, connective tissue and others).

Not an exaggeration; I reckon statins are probably the most malevolent con ever pulled by the drug companies. They're certainly one of the most profitable - ... "experts" (also known as a "pharma-whores") contend that EVERYONE over the age of 40 should be given them, and even more absurdly, that they should added to certain foods as a "supplement" (yeh - we're all statin deficient!).....

I haven't bothered providing citations, because a search for "statins side effects" will provide so much material that it's hard to even begin to choose one. Amongst much else, you'll find the internet awash with anecdotes similar to mine.

And who should I believe - The Man, or my own lying eyes?

(BTW - I know this is just begging to be moved to the CT forum.)
"The Man"? Wow, what era are you from?

Since you've described some difficulty navigating through the junk info on the Net to get to the valid info, I thought I might help you out.

Start here with this very detailed though perhaps a tad out of date (1999) analysis of the billion dollar supplement industry. Of particular note, a couple of the Big Pharma companies are also in the top 15 biggest supplement producers.

Economic Characterization of the Dietary Supplement Industry

Funny you imagine the supplement industry isn't part of the corporate community.


Then there is the risk/cost vs benefit issue (you seem only interested in risk/cost) you can't find a concise source to cite regarding statins. Here's a thorough discussion of the issues you are concerned with. Many of us here are familiar with the author and trust him not to be in on any Big Pharma conspiracy. Many here know him personally if that helps you in any way. What should be more helpful, however, is the fact the discussion is not one sided by any means.

Statins – The Cochrane Review
This recent Cochrane review of statin use for primary prevention supports the conclusion that statins are safe and effective in reducing vascular events and overall mortality even in primary prevention. The benefits are statistically small, which is expected for a preventive measure in a low risk population. It is still unclear where to draw the line in terms of which patients should receive statins, but these data will help practitioners and patients make individualized decisions about cholesterol management and vascular prophylaxis.

Because this is ultimately a judgment call, the results of this study can be spun to a variety of conclusions. The study authors chose to present an overall negative conclusion – that the effect size is too small to be worth it. While other experts, looking at the same data, have come to the opposite conclusion – that statins are worth it. It is important to emphasize that the debate is not about whether or not statins have a real effect – they do, but about the cost-benefit of statins as an intervention for primary prevention.
Like I said, risk/cost vs benefit, not risk/cost alone.

No doubt Big Pharma is marketing statins to the largest consumer base possible, regardless of the risk/cost vs benefit analysis. But marketing pharmaceuticals is a separate issue. You would be wise to view it that way. Every medical practitioner out there is not duped and/or in on the conspiracy. Patients can trust their physician (or can find one they can trust) and take individual medical advice rather than recommendations from drug advertisements and commercials.


As for your own lying eyes, yes they do. Why someone can't show you that your assumptions about the cause of your neighbor's health problem are absurd, is a more difficult problem. No doubt you've heard that you have no reason to single out the statins in this case when there are dozens of possible causes for the man's health problems. Are you a Guru? Can you put your hands on someone or just look at them and diagnose their medical condition? If you can do that, you should prove it. Apply for the million dollar challenge.

So what makes you so arrogant as to think you can look at someone and declare statins are their problem? Do you even know what the list of possible causes were for your neighbor's condition?


Yes, your reasoning does fall into the CT and definitely not the science forum.
 
Last edited:
*MY* own experience with statins

Simvastatin, specifically:

Occasional indigestion. Lower cholesterol. No deterioration as was described in the OP.

Before we go blaming the drug for the patient's deterioration, why don't we look at the total picture? Because I sure as hell am not going down that same road as the man in the OP, and the similarity between us is the drug.

Oh, BTW:
... arbitrary threshhold for blood-serum cholesterol determined to be "too high", most people being completely unaware of the ubiquity of cholesterol in the body as a whole, or the mechansim by which statins accomplish what they do.

What's arbitrary about high cholesterol levels being associated with cardiovascular disease? A mechanism is even known for this - cholesterol plaque being involved with atherosclerosis. That's far from being arbitrary; on the contrary, it's evidence based.
 
Could there possibly be an industry that would exploit vulnerable people to purchase products that will contribute to their demise?

Geepers, I can't think of any off-hand.
 
I haven't bothered providing citations, because a search for "statins side effects" will provide so much material that it's hard to even begin to choose one. Amongst much else, you'll find the internet awash with anecdotes similar to mine.

Of course you haven't provided evidence because there is so much of it!

OK, I'll accept that as proof. I really only have one question... is "awash" the numerator or the denominator?
 
Why do they do it? Because "health care" to them is nothing but "disease management", and the bottom line is that the sicker people get the more drugs the pharmas sell and the more money they make. I’m not being too cynical for you, I hope?


This type of conspiracy theory doesn't work too well with a system like the NHS.

I haven't bothered providing citations, because a search for "statins side effects" will provide so much material that it's hard to even begin to choose one. Amongst much else, you'll find the internet awash with anecdotes similar to mine.


Yes, we'll find loads more of the same. The internet is awash with nonsense. I wouldn't take medical advice from some random bloke down the pub either.

Can you provide any reliable evidence to support your claims?
 
Amongst much else, you'll find the internet awash with anecdotes similar to mine.

And who should I believe - The Man, or my own lying eyes?

Funny. I've lost weight, gotten stronger and faster, my diabetes is under control without meds and I've gotten off blood pressure meds all after starting statins (Lovastatin at first, now Simvastatin) a couple of years ago

Who should _I_ believe? Teh interwebs?
 
One tid bit to add: the typical five year study used to prove the efficacy of statins has a 95% drop out rate. But a claimed side effect rate of "less than 1%". New math, I guess?
 
So Supernaut knows two old men who are degenerating. They both take statins. Sounds like a major conspiracy to me.

Did I miss the part where all of their symptoms improved when they quit the drug?

Though I do know several people who got muscles pains on the statins, that went away when they quit. Lot's more than 1%. I think.
 
Hmm... Funny how "Big Pharma" is pushing statins.

That would be why my GP in a rationalisation drive for the NHS switched me from Crestor (tm) to Simvastatin (Generic)...

Simvastatin costs 90p for a 28 day supply to the NHS. I can see "Big Pharma" creaming in the profits here. I wonder how much a Homeopath would charge for 1 months treatment of sugar pills? Probably a lot more than the Crestor (tm) I switched from which being in patent was costing the NHS £30.00 for a 28 day supply.

I was also taking escitalopram (Cipralex (tm)) which is the active enantiomer of citalopram. Cipralex 20mg costs £25.50 for a 28 day supply. I was switched over to the original citalopram which merely meant my tablet is bigger (40mg) however it costs the NHS just £1.37 for the exact same thing.

So much for "Big Pharma" and statins.

BTW, I have taken these for over 4 years now and have no ill effects whatsover.
 
So Supernaut knows two old men who are degenerating. They both take statins. Sounds like a major conspiracy to me.

Did I miss the part where all of their symptoms improved when they quit the drug?

Though I do know several people who got muscles pains on the statins, that went away when they quit. Lot's more than 1%. I think.

I wouldn't say people of 55 or even 65 are "old men".

However, Neil, who is 55, does seem like one, physically, which always seemed odd to me, particuarly given his formerly active life.

Also, general guidelines are that women over c. 60 and men over c. 70 should not take them, because cholesterol synthesis drops off naturally with age, hence very few oldsters are consdered hypercholesterolemic.

It is, in fact, people in middle-age and older who take statins who report deterioration in mental and physical health.
 
Funny. I've lost weight, gotten stronger and faster, my diabetes is under control without meds and I've gotten off blood pressure meds all after starting statins (Lovastatin at first, now Simvastatin) a couple of years ago

Who should _I_ believe? Teh interwebs?

So, you're "stronger and faster" - are you saying this is thanks to statins?

As I asked Sputnik - do you mind my asking what age you are?
 
<snip>
Yes, we'll find loads more of the same. The internet is awash with nonsense. I wouldn't take medical advice from some random bloke down the pub either.

Can you provide any reliable evidence to support your claims?

I'm not sure what you would accept as 'reliable'. As I said, a search for "statins side effects" produces (literally) reams of hits, and amongst them is much that, to me, is compelling.
 
Simvastatin costs 90p for a 28 day supply to the NHS. I can see "Big Pharma" creaming in the profits here. I wonder how much a Homeopath would charge for 1 months treatment of sugar pills? Probably a lot more than the Crestor (tm) I switched from which being in patent was costing the NHS £30.00 for a 28 day supply.

I am an American, and don't subscribe to any CTs. I am a scientist and skeptic.

But for those of you who live where there is national health care, which generally has price controls on drugs--please don't forget that the US has neither a national health care policy, nor price controls on drugs.

I believe that the VA negotiates drug prices, but Medicare does not. And those of us who have private health insurance pay a butt load more for drugs--especially brand name drugs.

I did a quick on-line search for Crestor® 10 mg (30 tablets). The cost was $146.50. A local pharmacy may charge more.
If I used the right convertor, that translates into £89.27.

Some pharmacies in the US have very low or fixed costs on popular generic drugs--like Walmart.
 
But for those of you who live where there is national health care, which generally has price controls on drugs--please don't forget that the US has neither a national health care policy, nor price controls on drugs.


The NHS was an issue that puzzled me about the OP - the poster seems to be in the UK, but is proposing a conspiracy theory in which "Big Pharma" makes people sick in order to sell more drugs. Since the NHS is a consumer rather than a producer this is obviously not in its interest.

The conspiracy theory doesn't work in the US either, because "Big Pharma" isn't the monolithic entity the theory requires.
 

Back
Top Bottom