My uncle is on Simvastatin (Zocor) and I've been sending him all of the information that I've learned. He says that he's suffering from most of the symptoms. He wonders if there is anything safe to take. Any non-statin alternatives that won't do so much harm??

Spin,

All drugs have side effects.
There are alternatives to statin therapy. The trouble is that none of them will work as well as simvastatin.

So each of us makes a benefit risk analysis and determines whether taking a drug is worth doing. In the case of statins, the benefit for many is the avoidance of an early death.

Your uncle must make his choice. His doctor might be able to help him make it.

My uncle is on Simvastatin (Zocor) and I've been sending him all of the information that I've learned. He says that he's suffering from most of the symptoms. He wonders if there is anything safe to take. Any non-statin alternatives that won't do so much harm??

Yes, one such alternative is fish oil. In fact, I recall that there was a study which concluded that fish oil actually outperformed statins in preventing heart attacks. The surprising thing was (well, maybe it's not so surprising), fish oil proved to be superior even though it didn't lower cholesterol. I know I posted some information on this study a while back.

Lenin, It seems that statins also have the ability of contributing to an "early death". They shouldn't call myopathy, loss of sight and memory, etc., "side effects". They are effects, and sometimes, it seems, as common as the desired ones. I'll tell him about the fish oil. Speaking of oil - I think that the drug companies have been passing off the snake version of it for far too long. If we didn't all settle for what they've come up with to deal with "diseases"; if we didn't all ignore all of the dangers and chalk them up to some other cause; maybe they'd be forced to figure out how to help us in ways that would help us and not harm us. Oh yeh, they wouldn't make nearly as much money that way, would they. They have a vested interest in promoting so-called diseases and then developing drugs to "cure" them. Perfect evidence of this is all of the psych "disorders" dujour. When Eli Lily was losing it's patent on Prozac, for instance, it decided to invent PMDD and repackage Prozac as Serafem, a near perfect solution for this "mental disorder" caused by a woman's natural cycle. What a load. Nobody knew that they were taking Prozac. Big pharmas are the epitome of snake oil salesmen.

Spin,

Those side effects that you call an "early death" seem to occur more on the internet (and amazingly usually among people who AREN'T taking statins) then among the 12 million people taking statins in the United States.
If the "early death" was as rampant as the crepe hangers with a computer would have it be, do you really think the drugs would be THE MOST POPULAR drugs in the world after all these years. The killer side effect that was dealt with by the FDA and Bayer years ago was rhabdomyolysis...it is rare to the point of non-existent with the current statins and every physician is alerted to watch for it and test for it.

If you looking for an allusin to "snake oil salesmen" I think the analogy works much better with BIG VITAMINO (or MEGA VITAMINO) where unproven "supplements" are peddled as cures for all disease without the requirement of a shred of proof...just skillful marketing.

Big Pharma as "evil" and greedy as it is, MUST provide proof of safety and efficacy before it can peddle it's wares.

Drugs have to WORK; snake oil doesn't have to and therefore DOESN'T!

So good luck finding your alternative, unless your question was purely rhetorical.

HAve you TRIED any, did they work as well as simvastatin? Did you die an early death? (That last WAS rhetorical)

Take fish oil by the shovelful and report back the results of your blood cholesterol, we can all benefit by your test. If it's still terrible you can always join the "cholesterol is good for you" camp.

"Big Pharma as "evil" and greedy as it is, MUST provide proof of safety and efficacy before it can peddle it's wares."

Oh gosh, that's a good one! You do know something about the approval process, right? You do know about all of the tricks don't you? Gee, I wonder why 20% of all approved drugs end up being pulled from the market, banned.

You must be incredibly busy, keeping up with the millions on statins and knowing how well they're all doing. Your generalizations don't help anyone. Every statin user I know has muscle pain and weakness, some moderate, some severe and they're all symptoms of myopathy and, if left to worsen because users are encouraged to stay on the drugs, can end up destroying their kidneys. A friend died recently of kidney failure. He's been on statins for years. Do you think this was reported as an adverse event or even possible adverse event? Nope. Most aren't. That's why people like you think that millions are taking statins without being harmed. Most doctors and patients don't recognize the side effect - don't know a thing about side effects.

And, of course, side effects don't affect everyone, but when the risks and dangers are inordinate, we have to be extremely cautious and call for closer scrutiny by the FDA, our doctors, etc. Every drug that's been banned, was louded by and defended by certain users. That doesn't mean a drug is safe.

Lenin, I usually agree with your posts, but it does seems you're gungho on the statin side. I understand that you feel statins are great due to your stent, but their are definitely ppl that can't take any type of cholesterol meds. My mom is such as person. When she told a friend about her episode with statins, it turned out her friend had the same problems.

I think more ppl (out of that 12 mil) can't tolerate statins than there are ppl that can. Many ppl don't even know the side effects of the drug and just chalk it up to something else. That's what happed to my mom, her friend, our bldg. inspector and our pastor. I'll even bet that is what happened to ol' Clinton. He probably stopped the statin thinking his cholesterol was down and he couldn't take the pain anymore.

If you get great results from statins, then that's great. However, some of us are just to chicken to continue with a drug that can have so many side effects...including death.

lane,

It may APPEAR that I am gung-ho for statins because I resist everyone who makes outlandish claims in blaming everything that happens in life on a drug group that must be taken for many years to be useful. If you read the forum long enough, you'll have read people baming their Alheimer's, GERD, tingling hands, neuropathies, arthritis, vision deterioration, sciatica, carpal tunnel syndrome and even baldness on statins. I am waiting for the first person to blame that he is getting OLDER on statins. So I take it upon myself to remind people that some things HAPPEN and if you live long enough MANY things happen...and they happen whether or not one is taking a particular statins.

If that seems "gung ho statins", then our definitions differ. If I can save ONE life by convinceing a newcomer that taking statins will improve his odds of avoiding a heart attack after his having spent a lifetime of abusing his heart with overeating, a high grease diet, and a sedentary life style, then it's worth doing. Otherwise, this person might avoid the single best treatment to ameliorate heart disease because somebody said statin therapy gave him a near-fatal hangnail.

spin,
If 20% of drugs are pulled from Big-Pharma's warehouses after closer scrutiny, that's 80% that are good drugs...far better than MEGA-VIATAMINO who has to stand up to NO scrutiny whatsoever.
What is the source of your 20% number, Mercola perchance? Did it come from the same reference to your claim that "Alzheimer's has skyrocketed by 10000%" <yes, 10 thousand percent>?

I'd seem less "gung ho" if I were responding to claims that were even vaguely rational or scientific.

lane,

It may APPEAR that I am gung-ho for statins because I resist everyone who makes outlandish claims in blaming everything that happens in life on a drug group that must be taken for many years to be useful. If you read the forum long enough, you'll have read people baming their Alheimer's, GERD, tingling hands, neuropathies, arthritis, vision deterioration, sciatica, carpal tunnel syndrome and even baldness on statins. I am waiting for the first person to blame that he is getting OLDER on statins. So I take it upon myself to remind people that some things HAPPEN and if you live long enough MANY things happen...and they happen whether or not one is taking a particular statins.

If that seems "gung ho statins", then our definitions differ. If I can save ONE life by convinceing a newcomer that taking statins will improve his odds of avoiding a heart attack after his having spent a lifetime of abusing his heart with overeating, a high grease diet, and a sedentary life style, then it's worth doing. Otherwise, this person might avoid the single best treatment to ameliorate heart disease because somebody said statin therapy gave him a near-fatal hangnail.

spin,
If 20% of drugs are pulled from Big-Pharma's warehouses after closer scrutiny, that's 80% that are good drugs...far better than MEGA-VIATAMINO who has to stand up to NO scrutiny whatsoever.
What is the source of your 20% number, Mercola perchance? Did it come from the same reference to your claim that "Alzheimer's has skyrocketed by 10000%" <yes, 10 thousand percent>?

I'd seem less "gung ho" if I were responding to claims that were even vaguely rational or scientific.


Lenin,

You're absolutely right that statins and other cholesterol-lowering drugs are much more effective, and consistently so, than any natural therapies in lowering LDL... You're also right that many natural therapies are snake-oil. Supplements are a 'buyers beware' business. You're also probably right that some people blame statins for health problems that were not really caused by them.

But statins ARE aggressively over-marketed (for financial reasons), and doctors and the pharmaceutical industry downplay or ignore their side effects.

I think that many on this forum would really like to take statins to lower their cholesterol, but have run into real side-effects from them and as a result are afraid to go back on them or other cholesterol-lowering drugs.

I fall into this category.

However, if I do not get better control of my numbers (or if they get worse) with Policosanol and diet/lifestyle changes, I may consider an alternate drug like Vytorin (which includes a weak statin), or a bile-acid sequestrant.

I had terrible muscle pain and weakness 2 years ago with Lipitor+Tricor, and do not want to risk the same trouble again by starting another strong statin. I realize I have a cholesterol problem, but also have a logical aversion to statins due to my experience with them.

HubbleRules
:cool:

Hubble,

It seems that your approach is a logical one.
I, TOO, would avoid statins if there was an alternative that works as effectively and cheaper...there just isn't.
And my life is on the line.

Have you thought of the possiblility that your problems may have been due to the fibrate rather than the statin?

Unfortunately Lenin... you are still under the impression that cholesterol is bad for you. I'm sure you have read all of the cholesterol trials reports in DETAIL. Its surprising to me that someone of your obvious knowledge would not notice that some of the vital information is missing, just as the NIH funded Statin Study has found out. And yes i do agree that statins are excellent at lowering cholesterol, just as you have said. HOWEVER, unfortunately, cholesterol is not the problem. I believe you should brush up on your research.....The latest information from the Statin Study and presented at a medical conference shows that people who suffer cognitive from cholesterol lowering can only recover 80% of the ability they had before. If another statin is tried at a higher rate, 100% of them suffered cognitive damage again..if it was at the same rate 90% suffered. The rusults were cumulative. THAT means that by the damage of the second statin you had permanently lost 36% of your cognitive ability. What statin did u say you were on?????

And yes i do agree that statins are excellent at lowering cholesterol, just as you have said. HOWEVER, unfortunately, cholesterol is not the problem.

Believe it or not, there actually was a time when I also believed all of the propaganda about how horribly bad cholesterol was for us. But I, like many others, was much more naive back then. Of course, now I know better. Cholesterol, in my opinion, does not become deposited in healthy arteries. If it does become deposited as plaque, there has to be a deeper underlying problem that is permitting this to occur. Inflammation, or lesions within the artery would be one likely cause. Aside from their cholesterol-lowering effects, statins also possess anti-inflammatory properties, and they help promote higher levels of nitric oxide, which can dilate arteries and promote better blood flow. So, if there are in fact benefits derived from statins, it may have nothing at all to do with cholesterol. Remember, fish oil actually does a better job of reducing risk than statins, even though fish oil has only a negligible impact on cholesterol. Fish oil also has anti-inflammatory properties, as does aspirin and vitamin C and vitamin E. And, as far as increasing nitric oxide levels, the amino acid L-arginine can also produce such an effect. So yes, I feel that there are safer, more natural alternatives to statins that can be very beneficial in protecting us from heart disease. But you'll never hear this from most doctors. They're too busy peddling drugs and receiving kick-backs from the drug companies.

Yes,
Cholesterol IS bad for us as all the reasonably well designed studies say.
But those who believe otherwise should have an easy enough job of raising their cholesterols to astronomically high levels with huge daily doses of bacon, sausage, butter, trans-fat margerines, heavy cream. Taking weight into the obese range would probably help raise most of the numbers.

I guess the name of the forum, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, means different things to different people. I remain firmly with the group trying to LOWER mine but of course I recognize that the forum name might conceivably be construed as GOAL for some.

Silly twaddle like:
The latest information from the Statin Study and presented at a medical conference shows that people who suffer cognitive from cholesterol lowering can only recover 80% of the ability they had before.
doesn;t impress me much because it could just as easily read that "of the people whose legs fell off from using aspirin, NONE recovered the ability to walk unaided."

Hubble,

Have you thought of the possiblility that your problems may have been due to the fibrate rather than the statin?

Lenin,

Some background info: I was on Lopid (another fibrate) for about 5 years before going on Lipitor for 7.5. Then I was on Lipitor/Tricor for about a month...

I believe it was the two in combination that caused the problem. I've since read that when combining a statin with a fibrate, the risk of myopathies goes up many fold over taking either individually.

Still, I am reluctant to go back on either - even taken singly... I just don't want to ever have the problem I had before, because I suspect that if it were to recur, it would be worse than before.

Like I said, if my numbers get worse (as they tend to as we age) I will reconsider prescription meds.

For the time being I'm going to stay the course that I'm on.

HubbleRules
:cool:

Yes,
Cholesterol IS bad for us as all the reasonably well designed studies say.


Isn't it funny how cholesterol is portrayed as being something so terribly bad, and yet it is so vitally important for our very existence? You may just as well say that blood is bad for us, as well as all our hormones which are responsible for maintaining us in reasonably good health. As I said before, I believe that something other than cholesterol is the underlying problem. But I don't think our bodies are designed to manufacture something that is meant to kill us.

Isn't it funny how cholesterol is portrayed as being something so terribly bad, and yet it is so vitally important for our very existence? You may just as well say that blood is bad for us, as well as all our hormones which are responsible for maintaining us in reasonably good health. As I said before, I believe that something other than cholesterol is the underlying problem. But I don't think our bodies are designed to manufacture something that is meant to kill us.

Yes, but Arizona,

Cancer cells flowing through our blood cannot be good either, nor is it important for our existance.
And yes,,,,our bodies can actually destroy us or part of us. Ever here of Autoimmune? Ask Rush Limbaugh...without his cochlear implant he is 100% deaf. Good hearing one day and gone the next month. His antibodies went askew and attacked his hearing, so yes, not ALL things flowing through our blood is good.
Blood clots aren't good either.

Isn't it funny how cholesterol is portrayed as being something so terribly bad, and yet it is so vitally important for our very existence? You may just as well say that blood is bad for us, as well as all our hormones which are responsible for maintaining us in reasonably good health. As I said before, I believe that something other than cholesterol is the underlying problem. But I don't think our bodies are designed to manufacture something that is meant to kill us.


Arizona,

I agree that cholesterol is made out to be a bigger boogey-man than it really is. It is a vital substance - composing most of the dry-weight of the brain for example.

Cholesterol is not the problem per-se, too-high a cholesterol level is part of the problem. What 'too high' means - I'm not really sure, but I do feel that once you get near TC of 280, you have a definite health problem that needs correction. As you know, I am somewhat skeptical of the new, lower 'cholesterol guidelines' because of the amount of financial conflict of interest in the system.

I think that high cholesterol is but one of several factors in the development of Coronary Heart Disease. Something causes cholesterol to be drawn into plaque in some, yet not in others, and it doesn't seem to be directly related to cholesterol levels. I personally feel that something as yet not fully understood (some as-yet undiagnosed source of chronic, low level inflammation - or physical damage to the blood vessels, perhaps due to high blood pressure and/or lack of collagen) sets in motion a series of events that results in cholesterol being drawn into plaques. If modern medicine can solve this puzzle, I think there will be a true breakthru in prevention/treatment of CHD.

But today we definitely know that if cholesterol levels are brought down to a low enough level (LDL < 70) that atherosclerotic progression stops and actually begins to reverse (very slowly), and this may be the only effective treatment for many with CHD. I just worry about what the long-term effects are of keeping cholesterol levels this low.

I think that keeping LDL from becomeing oxidized (by taking anti-oxidants) may actually achieve similar results, since oxidized LDL is what is drawn into plaques.

In addition to diet and exercise, I continue to take my vitamin-e and vitamin-c (to keep LDL oxidation from occurring), I take Niacin to help boost my HDL, and I take Policosanol to try to lower my LDL.

But I'm no fool either - if my cholesterol numbers get worse with time and approach what I consider to be a 'danger level', I would definitely consider prescription meds again.

HubbleRules
:cool:

Yes, but Arizona,

Cancer cells flowing through our blood cannot be good either, nor is it important for our existance.

I knew somebody would bring this up. But it's not natural for cancer cells to be flowing through our blood, is it? However, from the time we are born, we all have cholesterol in our blood, don't we? And it's for a good reason. It's important for our health and well-being. Now, you know as well as I do that without cholesterol we'd all be dead. Can anyone refute that fact?

I knew somebody would bring this up. But it's not natural for cancer cells to be flowing through our blood, is it? However, from the time we are born, we all have cholesterol in our blood, don't we? And it's for a good reason. It's important for our health and well-being. Now, you know as well as I do that without cholesterol we'd all be dead. Can anyone refute that fact?


I don't know about that either Arizona.
I was told by a number of people that ALL of us have cancer in our bodies as something "normal". It is just only when it gets out of control that it kills us. Or when our immune system cannot contain or kill it. Perhaps in time we will learn that cancer is good in some ways until it gets out of control.
Cholesterol is more than likely the same way.


Our bodies, as greatly designed as they are, ARE subject to disease and sickness. There is no way around it.
Without cholesterol we would, more than likely be dead, and with too much we die also. Otherwise let's all do what we can to raise it.

Lenin, It seems that statins also have the ability of contributing to an "early death". They shouldn't call myopathy, loss of sight and memory, etc., "side effects". They are effects, and sometimes, it seems, as common as the desired ones. I'll tell him about the fish oil. Speaking of oil - I think that the drug companies have been passing off the snake version of it for far too long. If we didn't all settle for what they've come up with to deal with "diseases"; if we didn't all ignore all of the dangers and chalk them up to some other cause; maybe they'd be forced to figure out how to help us in ways that would help us and not harm us. Oh yeh, they wouldn't make nearly as much money that way, would they. They have a vested interest in promoting so-called diseases and then developing drugs to "cure" them. Perfect evidence of this is all of the psych "disorders" dujour. When Eli Lily was losing it's patent on Prozac, for instance, it decided to invent PMDD and repackage Prozac as Serafem, a near perfect solution for this "mental disorder" caused by a woman's natural cycle. What a load. Nobody knew that they were taking Prozac. Big pharmas are the epitome of snake oil salesmen.


Spin,


The things you speak of here (blindness, early death,)seem to exist in other parts of the world that have no medicines whatsoever ! And actually there are many organizations taking these much needed meds TO those countries to help them.

Let's get logical a minute. I go to Walmart nearly every day and see perhaps hundreds of people coming in and out. How many of these would you suspect are on Statins (not to mention other meds)? 50%?....60%/...70%?.
O.K., let's just say 50% for good measure. WHY oh WHY is it that I have not seen even *1* person with a cane and dark sunglasses? If Statins cause blindness as you say then how come?
Moreover, HOW can they even shop if they lost cognitive ability? I see them counting and exchanging money all the time with no apparent shortfalls. So your arguments are really mute to say the least. :D :D

I mean, Spin, let's not be like the lady who spilled a cup of hot coffee on her lap and sued McDonalds and won :D Get the gist? :D

2

Evolution has provided us with many mechanism whose goal is procreation and rearing of the next generation. Many of these things are detrimental to a life lived into one's 60's, 70's, and 80's.
Evolution has not had time...nor ANY inclination...to provide for a happy life in "seniordom." In fact, the survival of the species might well be enhanced by the early death of those beyond procreation age...the FOOD will stretch farther. I suppose there's some evolutionary gain to preserving our "ancient" knowledge.:D:D

So what may be right for the body of a 30 year old may very well be ALL WRONG for someone over 50. The ability to raise blood pressure easily, the ability too store fats easily, and the ease with which arterial walls scar over easily come to mind...as does cholesterol production which is so necessary to produce sexual (reproductive) hormones. For all we know, the goal of all these dangerous blood lipids may be to enhance food storage during famine...all wrong and probaly ver dangerous during a century of plenty which has been a rarity in historical time (and only shared by SOME even now.)

A happy and healthy later life may very well be aided by drugs that contravene many of the processes that make for a happy, healthy and procreative life at 21. Probably there are elements of Alzheimer's that proved useful early on.

To go back a few decades look at that well accepted TYPE A personality...driven to great success in the business world...BUT destroying his heart in the process. A process geared to success until it caused an early death.

No, nature has forgotten those sailing off into the sunset:D:D...and assuming she hasn't might be making a big mistake. We may see ourselves in a sailboat with a big Evinrude whereas nature may be thinking more in terms of the proverbial small block of ice...like that provided for elderly Eskimos.

If we are to survive long and happily, we must BATTLE some aspects of Mother's Nature. Remember, what "Nature intended" was a short life: get your kids to reproduction age (what, 12, 13?) and goodbye mister.

Arizona,

I agree that cholesterol is made out to be a bigger boogey-man than it really is. It is a vital substance - composing most of the dry-weight of the brain for example.

Cholesterol is not the problem per-se, too-high a cholesterol level is part of the problem. What 'too high' means - I'm not really sure, but I do feel that once you get near TC of 280, you have a definite health problem that needs correction. As you know, I am somewhat skeptical of the new, lower 'cholesterol guidelines' because of the amount of financial conflict of interest in the system.

I think that high cholesterol is but one of several factors in the development of Coronary Heart Disease. Something causes cholesterol to be drawn into plaque in some, yet not in others, and it doesn't seem to be directly related to cholesterol levels. I personally feel that something as yet not fully understood (some as-yet undiagnosed source of chronic, low level inflammation - or physical damage to the blood vessels, perhaps due to high blood pressure and/or lack of collagen) sets in motion a series of events that results in cholesterol being drawn into plaques. If modern medicine can solve this puzzle, I think there will be a true breakthru in prevention/treatment of CHD.

But today we definitely know that if cholesterol levels are brought down to a low enough level (LDL < 70) that atherosclerotic progression stops and actually begins to reverse (very slowly), and this may be the only effective treatment for many with CHD. I just worry about what the long-term effects are of keeping cholesterol levels this low.

I think that keeping LDL from becomeing oxidized (by taking anti-oxidants) may actually achieve similar results, since oxidized LDL is what is drawn into plaques.

In addition to diet and exercise, I continue to take my vitamin-e and vitamin-c (to keep LDL oxidation from occurring), I take Niacin to help boost my HDL, and I take Policosanol to try to lower my LDL.

But I'm no fool either - if my cholesterol numbers get worse with time and approach what I consider to be a 'danger level', I would definitely consider prescription meds again.

HubbleRules
:cool:


Hubble, I totally believe what you have posted, I read just lately that they are thinking that the inflammation may be caused by a virus and may even be the herpes virus associated with chicken pox. We all know the chicken pox virus does not die but can often surface again in the form of shingles. When I had a case of shingles the doctor told me that when you see the tiny blisters on the skin there are also the same internally. Perhaps our drug for the future will be one to kill viruses attacking our arteries. :)

Spin,


The things you speak of here (blindness, early death,)seem to exist in other parts of the world that have no medicines whatsoever ! And actually there are many organizations taking these much needed meds TO those countries to help them.

Let's get logical a minute. I go to Walmart nearly every day and see perhaps hundreds of people coming in and out. How many of these would you suspect are on Statins (not to mention other meds)? 50%?....60%/...70%?.
O.K., let's just say 50% for good measure. WHY oh WHY is it that I have not seen even *1* person with a cane and dark sunglasses? If Statins cause blindness as you say then how come?
Moreover, HOW can they even shop if they lost cognitive ability? I see them counting and exchanging money all the time with no apparent shortfalls. So your arguments are really mute to say the least. :D :D

I mean, Spin, let's not be like the lady who spilled a cup of hot coffee on her lap and sued McDonalds and won :D Get the gist? :D

2
Seems to me a good reason you don't see blind people with canes....is that I rarely see them anywhere. My aunt is blind and she rarely ventures out. And the reason you rarely see people with cognitve disabilites is that they rarley venture out, unescorted. If you want to be logical, you can't make assuptions on how many people are on statins unless the have a big S plastered on their foreheads. The reason I refer to the statin study done by ucsd is that it was funded by the National Institude of Health (NIH) a government agency. It is criminal to release wrong information and carries a stiff penalty. They would be as excited as I would to have statins be the miracle drug as they are touted to be. Recent long term studies have shown that statins do not help with alzheimers, as was first reported by the statin drug manufacturers. THe statin study has compiled detailed information taken from the results of all the major statin trial and studies. This information was provided by the drug manufacturers. There are various vital pieces of information missing iincluding total mortality in some studies, and cognitive function was not measured in many. Most of us are here to help other people know the truth whether good are bad.

Yes,
Cholesterol IS bad for us as all the reasonably well designed studies say.
But those who believe otherwise should have an easy enough job of raising their cholesterols to astronomically high levels with huge daily doses of bacon, sausage, butter, trans-fat margerines, heavy cream. Taking weight into the obese range would probably help raise most of the numbers.

I guess the name of the forum, HIGH CHOLESTEROL, means different things to different people. I remain firmly with the group trying to LOWER mine but of course I recognize that the forum name might conceivably be construed as GOAL for some.

Silly twaddle like:

doesn;t impress me much because it could just as easily read that


Silly twaddle lenin???? People with cognitive abilites never know they have cognitive abilities. After having my mother in a nursing home for a couple of months recovering for surgery, i was around people with dementia. I also know that she has suffered some cognitive damage from statins and also Zetia. I believe that the NIH funded statin study, has people involved with resumes that would surpass most of the population. If people didn't have these problems while on statins, and only good effects there wouldn't be much to talk about would there. Also, one of the side effects is agressiveness and irrationality. You might want to check out the violence rate of people with low cholesterol.

Don't take me out of context please.
If you want to quote me, use the entire quote.
If your argument is so weak that it requires editing my comment, then perhaps it's an argument not worth making.

Don't take me out of context please.
If you want to quote me, use the entire quote.
If your argument is so weak that it requires editing my comment, then perhaps it's an argument not worth making.


Dear Lenin: I didn't edit your comment. When I hit the quote button, this is exactly how it edited it. ( you might try it) Then again what you said about taking things out of context is good alvice for all of us.

Seems to me a good reason you don't see blind people with canes....is that I rarely see them anywhere. My aunt is blind and she rarely ventures out. And the reason you rarely see people with cognitve disabilites is that they rarley venture out, unescorted. If you want to be logical, you can't make assuptions on how many people are on statins unless the have a big S plastered on their foreheads. The reason I refer to the statin study done by ucsd is that it was funded by the National Institude of Health (NIH) a government agency. It is criminal to release wrong information and carries a stiff penalty. They would be as excited as I would to have statins be the miracle drug as they are touted to be. Recent long term studies have shown that statins do not help with alzheimers, as was first reported by the statin drug manufacturers. THe statin study has compiled detailed information taken from the results of all the major statin trial and studies. This information was provided by the drug manufacturers. There are various vital pieces of information missing iincluding total mortality in some studies, and cognitive function was not measured in many. Most of us are here to help other people know the truth whether good are bad.


But that is illogical. :D What you are suggesting is that all Statin users are staying at home blind with no cognitive abilities :D
And yet, MANY go to Walmarts and Giant Eagles for their Statins ! :) on foot ! In the flesh ! Unblind and unfettered cognitive ability. :D


But yes, I CAN make assumptions as to how many are on Statins because those who dislike Statins always say words like "millions" are on them. If so, then the National "trends" would indicate high percentages that go to Walmart use them. I mean, let's be logical.


Statins do not help Alzheimers? What does? :D That's like saying Aspirin doesn't help baldness.
Statins are meant to help cholesterol.


How do you know trial info is missing unless you saw it first? :confused:
Totally illogical.

But that is illogical. :D What you are suggesting is that all Statin users are staying at home blind with no cognitive abilities :D
And yet, MANY go to Walmarts and Giant Eagles for their Statins ! :) on foot ! In the flesh ! Unblind and unfettered cognitive ability. :D


But yes, I CAN make assumptions as to how many are on Statins because those who dislike Statins always say words like "millions" are on them. If so, then the National "trends" would indicate high percentages that go to Walmart use them. I mean, let's be logical.


Statins do not help Alzheimers? What does? :D That's like saying Aspirin doesn't help baldness.
Statins are meant to help cholesterol.



How do you know trial info is missing unless you saw it first? :confused:
Totally illogical.

I don't think you read what i had written carefully. Ther are approximatly 12 million people on statins in the U.S., that can easily go to 36 million with the new guildelines that have been set. I am using simple , recognized methods to collect data. There are specific tests to do for cognitive decline. It is not as simple as a blood test. I did not group blind people, people with cognitive decline, and statin users all in one group. When you are doing a test you CANNOT assume anything. Did you ever consider that all or most statin users might hate wal-mart and have decided never to set a foot in there? Chances are that this is not true, but again assume is not a part of testing results. There are many degrees of impairment for people on statin drugs, as well as other prescription medications. Not all of them show signs (outwardly), but many of them are suffering. If you had kept up on statins you would be aware of the drug companies press releases on alzheimers. (and by the way did you know, that in a certain test , that 90% of the people (who had alzheimer's) tested positive for a certain virsus in the brain????) And how do i know trial information is missing, have i seen them? YES I HAVE....I do my homework. Examples: women excluded in the rusults because the findings (on women) were insignificant however, this was not a footnote in the conclusions. You could only find it by going back into the test data. AGE: Conclusions listed said statins were important for all ages However, in the group of people used, no one was over 62. There are many more. In fact, it has never been shown that women of any age, or any health condition, have had a benifit from cholesterol lowering. In fact just the opposite. Again, you never assume anything.

All statins have the side effect. and that is known for years. But if taking statins is a must for a patient, then i can offer using Pravastatin (Pravachol) which has the least side effects when compared by others.
you can get additional info by clicking

http://www.bbonlinepharmacy.com/category.asp?kid=13

All the best

I don't think you read what i had written carefully. Ther are approximatly 12 million people on statins in the U.S., that can easily go to 36 million with the new guildelines that have been set. I am using simple , recognized methods to collect data. There are specific tests to do for cognitive decline. It is not as simple as a blood test. I did not group blind people, people with cognitive decline, and statin users all in one group. When you are doing a test you CANNOT assume anything. Did you ever consider that all or most statin users might hate wal-mart and have decided never to set a foot in there? Chances are that this is not true, but again assume is not a part of testing results. There are many degrees of impairment for people on statin drugs, as well as other prescription medications. Not all of them show signs (outwardly), but many of them are suffering. If you had kept up on statins you would be aware of the drug companies press releases on alzheimers. (and by the way did you know, that in a certain test , that 90% of the people (who had alzheimer's) tested positive for a certain virsus in the brain????) And how do i know trial information is missing, have i seen them? YES I HAVE....I do my homework. Examples: women excluded in the rusults because the findings (on women) were insignificant however, this was not a footnote in the conclusions. You could only find it by going back into the test data. AGE: Conclusions listed said statins were important for all ages However, in the group of people used, no one was over 62. There are many more. In fact, it has never been shown that women of any age, or any health condition, have had a benifit from cholesterol lowering. In fact just the opposite. Again, you never assume anything.



O.K.,

Then let's say there is 250-300 million in the US. Then that means that 1 in 20-25 is on a Statin, or 4-5 in 100 people walking (literally) :D into Walmart, Giant Eagle or CVS or Ritaid, or wherever every day. I can stand outside any of these especially Walmart and count 100 people fairly quick and I will see no maimed. And IF I do, it might be they have another problem of some sort more than likely.

And why is it that Johns Hopkins University said that Statins cleared Arteries?

O.K.,

Then let's say there is 250-300 million in the US. Then that means that 1 in 20-25 is on a Statin, or 4-5 in 100 people walking (literally) :D into Walmart, Giant Eagle or CVS or Ritaid, or wherever every day. I can stand outside any of these especially Walmart and count 100 people fairly quick and I will see no maimed. And IF I do, it might be they have another problem of some sort more than likely.

And why is it that Johns Hopkins University said that Statins cleared Arteries?

Stand outside and count away. But then again with your psychic ability your skills would probably be put to better use at a drug company.

According to Washington Unviersity In St Louis and their department of neurology (web site) problems with statins can occur anywhere from 1-7 years after the start of the medication.

According to Washington Unviersity In St Louis and their department of neurology (web site) problems with statins can occur anywhere from 1-7 years after the start of the medication.



So can alot of other things even if one was not on any Statins whatsoever ! INCLUDING a stroke or heart attack !

Sooner or later something will get you, on meds or not. Aspirin can make a stomach bleed. And choking on a piece of chicken can kill too. :D

Jane, you are 100% right in what you said about doctors not mentioning "muscle pain" or side effects. When the patient (my mom) complains, they refer the patient to rehab or physical therapy. My mother took lipitor for three or more yrs constantly complaining about heart palps, and muscle pain. Finally we had to rush her to the ER and they took her off the lipitor.

Now our new doctor wants her to take zorcor. Of course, she was able to tell him no bcuz her medicare wouldn't cover it. Now she has part d and he knows she can get it for $5 and he is insisting she start the zorcor. He threaten to not treat her and she will need to find another doctor.

Im sure she will work this out and not take it. (I guess?) She doesn't trust dcotors anymore bcuz she was told to take asprin 325 mgs and now she has cataracts in both eyes and has had numerous surgeries to stop the bleeding in her eyes.

Jane, like U, I wish I had heard about the side effects of statins many years ago. As U might know, hubby was on Lipitor for over 7 years, had constant pain and muscle aches, but was told it might be arthritis. At that time we had no computer so I knew nothing of statins or any other meds. for that matter.

In 2000 they shoved me on Lipitor and within 3 months I was a wreck, mostly GI problems, they blamed it on nerves. Finally I went to a GI dr. who said it definitely was NOT nerves, and after going thru many tests they finally got me pretty well striaghtened out. Shortly after I went to a new dr. who said he wanted me on Baycol, oh boy, then the fun really began. After 2 months of getting the GI problems back and pains that were so horrid in my back and legs I could barely make it up a flight of stairs, I dumped the pills and said NO MORE!! Dr. told me it was possible arthritis, geez, they use that alot for an excuse, but I called the GI guy back and told him, in turn he called my dr. and said I was NOT able to take statins. The reg. dr. was a bit miffed at me, but I told him, one of these days these suckers are going to be pulled off the market, but his respoonse was..."Oh no, they are the best thing since sliced bread". Hmmm, 7 months after I dumped Baycol, they were pulled.

Shortly after that I and hubby got a computer and I was floored when I started to see sites like this and other info. I found on statins. Luckily I didn't take them long enough to do too much damage, except raise my BP, which always ran about 108-112/ 70-75 to a whopping 160/100. Even the dr. thought his machine went nuts and tried 3 others to be sure. Now I have the wonderful pleasure of being on BP meds., how sweet is that? Hubby unfortuneately has had many problems, and I know if I would have known back then what these pills can do to some people I would have never taken them and would have had hubby off of them alot sooner. Since he has been on statins he developed high BP, Diabetes and permanent PN. Like his cardio man said, if they cause a person to sacrifice their QUALITY of life, they are not worth taking, so he doesn't get on hubby's case to take them.

Yes, there are folks who take them with lil problems, but most folks I know have had very nasty side effects and now refuse to take them. I think since people have learned to do their own research they are getting wise to the fact these meds. can affect many people seriously. I know I will get flack over this post, but that is what we experienced so we refuse to take them.

Why should you get flack over this post?? If I had these symptoms/side effects I definately would NOT take statins. I wish I could be like a friend of mine. She is in her 60's and does NOT go to a doctor, not since her last child and that was like 35 yrs ago, not even for female check ups, she told her family "give me a good mass when I die". But she can live with herself like that, she doesn't worry. I'd constantly worry and tell myself "I should go and get this mammogram, I should have my cholesterol checked, I should go for a pap smear" and the list goes on. I could not be at peace like she is.

Well there are folks who think these side effects are all in our heads, so I'm use to the flack, as many others are also. As I have stated MANY times, if one can take them with no problems, good luck to them, but for those of us who have suffered in the past..forget it, it just isn't worth it.

Yes, there was a lady at the gym we use to go to that was 75, but active as can be. She went to the dr. and was told she had high BP and cholesterol, but she refused to take anything. Like she told her dr., I want to live my life my way, so I keep active, travel and enjoy my life. Her dr. told her she had a great attitude, and as long as things didn't get any worse, go live your life, and she is still doing just fine. At one point I also was constantly worrying about my numbers etc. etc, till finally I just said forget it, this stress is definitely not worth it. Whatever the good Lord has in store for me, I'll accept and live with. I do my best to eat right and exercise, and at times my numbers have been just fine, other times not so fine, but like my old dr. use to tell me...Stress will kill U, and I believe it, so I take each day as it comes.

Enjoy your evening....... :wave:

Here's a little of my history (start yawning)...

Last March my dad died at the age of 58 of a massive heart attack. 3 months later my grandmother died after many years of diabetes. About a month after all that I was sitting at my computer and had this very hot sensation around my right ear and surrounding area and face. I thought I was having a stroke or something. I went to the ER. They did the usual tests asked the usual questions and waved me off as premenopausal. Ok fine. So I went home. It seems maybe a couple of weeks later I was putting dishes away in the kitchen and had a very sharp, very sudden pain right in the center of my chest lasted maybe less than a minute maybe a little more? Went to the ER again. More tests, a chest xray etc. Was told "Costochondritis" given a shot of cortizone in my chest and sent home. Wait, it gets better...

A few more weeks later at home I'm trying to watch tv but can't ignore the nagging dull aching in my chest. I go back to the ER more tests, sent to another hospital by ambulance, more tests, 4 hours later more tests, nothing. Again, sent home. I told my doctor I was very concerned so I did the 24 hour event monitor... she said it was fine.

They had put me on steroids on 2 seperate occassions because of the "Costo". One doctor prescribed 800mg of iburprophen 3 times a day. I have an ucler and he knew that. After 2 days I got this gripping pain around my ribs under my breasts. I could barely breath and it hurt so bad I was crying. All my husband could do was watch. After about an hour and 20 minutes it subsided. I was left nauseaed and blood in my stools and feeling like someone had just punched me in the stomach. I spent the whole next day in bed. Why not go to the ER? I knew what they'd do.

I told my doctor the next time I saw her which was about a week later. She asked me if I stopped the ibuprophen, DUH!! She suggested I see a counselor due to my dad passing away. Even the ER doctor upon my telling him about my dad passing said "BINGO!" I knew immediately they wrote me off as a mental case.

Ok, so I found another doctor who did an Echocardiogram and apparently came out ok. The only thing they ever found was some kind of abnormality on my ST waves which she said weren't all that abnormal. My BP is always normal anywhere from 120 over 80 to 132 over 70 etc. Only gets high when I'm upset or angry or really stressed etc.

So, very long story short here. My cholesterol was tested and it was 241. She suggested I try a diet to control it and get it down. So I started eating lots of fish I mean tons of it at least 3 to 4 times a week. Salmon and whiting etc. BAD idea! I went back and she tested it again about 5 months later and it jumped up to 263 although my HDL went up from 59 to 61 and my tric went down from 148 i think they were to 75 my LDL jumped up. So she has put me on Crestor. I've been on that for about 3 months now. She's going to test it again next month. I'm also on Robaxin for my Costo and now she's saying I may have Fibro. Wants to put me on Elavil to help me sleep. So, that's...

ibuprophen, robaxin, elavil (which I have yet to get filled because I just don't want another med) pepcid and Crestor i think just 10 mg. I'm trying hard to ween myself off everything except the crestor. since aspercream works well on my chest muscles.

I said all that to say this... Ya'll have me scared to death! Noone mentioned anything about Crestor and I read every post. I bought some fish oil but am scared to use it fearing it will raise my LDL. My sister has high BP and is on meds, my mom is on all kinds of meds and was diagnosed with diabetes in Nov. my family has a high history for heart disease. in comparison to my family i'm doing very well and in comparison to cholesterol readings of my friends who are in the 400's and even higher i'm doing very good.

I was never more scared of dying than when I started going to the doctor.



Dreama,


I think what you may be afraid of in reality is your family history and that certainly is understandable.
But even genetics can be delayed in my opinion.
Don't be afraid of what anyone tells you about cholesterol meds. With your family history I think I would approach the cholesterol problem first which it looks like you are doing. I know ALOT of people on cholesterol meds and they have no problems whatsoever AND even if you did it just won't knock you on your butt overnight. If you have this type of family history then Crestor or some other Statin may just be your best friend. :)


BTW, good BP numbers ! :)

Dreama,


Good go. :) I think you are making a good sensible choice. Keep in mind that if you have, or think you are, having a problem with Crestor that another Statin like Zocor is known to be a much milder Statin for a number of people. I use Vytorin, (mixture of Zocor and Zetia) and I love it. I have had no present problems with it. BUT, if you ever were to have problems, I just don't think you all of a sudden wake up with it. You would find out slowly, and then of course you could push for a change. But do not let anyone scare you. :)
But really, the different ages you show are not far from the National average lifespan in the U.S. which is presently 73-74. And 84 is well above the National average, as *most never make 90. So with some adjustments, a little med and healthly living you should be fine. You MAY actually have some of your Grandmas genetics...you just might with that nice BP.


And if I could calm your fears about chest pains...usually, it is my understanding....that women do not get chest pains like men when it comes to the heart. Usually it is really funny symptoms like in the neck and back. My guess is that it was from the ulcer ?? At either rate I would not be too concerned if all looks O.K.

Stumper,

About 2 yrs ago my husband developed bad pains in his hips, and shoulders, waking up at night with pain etc. He is NOT on statins and never was. He had all the tests you can imagine, bone scan, cat scan, bone marrow test. All negative. Final diagnosis: "part of getting older".

Wow, all those tests, and so much money spent. And then he says, "part of getting older." Okay, so what is he going to do about it? Probably nothing.

I can not take statins. I think I have gone through them all. Zocor 10mg was the last one I tried. I was able to take that one longer (6 months) and with the least side effects, than any of the others I have tried. But then the Doc upped it to 20mg and it messed me up, so I had to quit taking it all together. That was a month ago.......
The only thing I can take is zetia. For me, it's great, I have not had any side effects from it at all and have been on it for almost two years. It has really helped part of my problem. For me, the the only good way to lower my dangerously high cholesterol is to walk, problem is, I am not able to walk. So I stay on a moderately low cholesterol diet, (20 years now) plus I take my zetia.
The most I can say is it could be worse.....
enie

I can not take statins. I think I have gone through them all. Zocor 10mg was the last one I tried. I was able to take that one longer (6 months) and with the least side effects, than any of the others I have tried. But then the Doc upped it to 20mg and it messed me up, so I had to quit taking it all together. That was a month ago.......
The only thing I can take is zetia. For me, it's great, I have not had any side effects from it at all and have been on it for almost two years. It has really helped part of my problem. For me, the the only good way to lower my dangerously high cholesterol is to walk, problem is, I am not able to walk. So I stay on a moderately low cholesterol diet, (20 years now) plus I take my zetia.
The most I can say is it could be worse.....



Erie,


How well did the Zetia drop your numbers?

It dropped about 30% in 2 years with zetia.
Even with all the years of healthy eating, once I stopped being able to walk, my total shot up to 370 with over 600 trigs.

Mine is still high 260T with 250 trigs, but they said my problem was hereditary.

If I had loved dairy or greasy stuff, I'd been dead long ago.......
enie

Stumper,

I read the posting rules again and we are not suppose to post adresses of other websites.

Sorry your computer is so slow. But the info is out there. They prevent gallstones or if you have them already prevent future stones to develop, there is more than one article about this subject.


Melvin,


I believe you can post links to informative articles provided that they are not commercial, selling something, and so forth.

But that is O.K....I will find it. Thanks :)

With such a long thread I should have said I was posting to Stumper, sorry about that...
Can you tell I'm no pro at this posting stuff....

I'd also like to add an extra note to clarify my posts 58&61:
In my first post on this thread I said that I was not able to take any of the Statins but did not explain why...
With every one of the Statins that I tried in the last 10 years, I had horrible right side and back pain that was exactly like and I repeat exactly like the gallbladder attacks I had back in the 1980s. These spells lasted anywhere from two days to two weeks after I stopped taking the med. I never have the spells when I am not on Statins. Most Doctors didn't believe me. Finally the Doctor I have now has heard of it but insists that it is my liver causing the pain. I don't care which one it is, I don’t think I want to try another one no matter how strongly they recommend it... even Vytorin.
enie

With such a long thread I should have said I was posting to Stumper, sorry about that...
Can you tell I'm no pro at this posting stuff....

I'd also like to add an extra note to clarify my posts 58&61:
In my first post on this thread I said that I was not able to take any of the Statins but did not explain why...
With every one of the Statins that I tried in the last 10 years, I had horrible right side and back pain that was exactly like and I repeat exactly like the gallbladder attacks I had back in the 1980s. These spells lasted anywhere from two days to two weeks after I stopped taking the med. I never have the spells when I am not on Statins. Most Doctors didn't believe me. Finally the Doctor I have now has heard of it but insists that it is my liver causing the pain. I don't care which one it is, I don’t think I want to try another one no matter how strongly they recommend it... even Vytorin.
enie



Erie,

That's O.K....I seen who you was speaking to.
Yes, IF the Statins were bothering you that much at least you had the option of Zetia which looks to be giving you some benefits.
I am glad you were able to realize a 30% reduction. :)

It dropped about 30% in 2 years with zetia.
Even with all the years of healthy eating, once I stopped being able to walk, my total shot up to 370 with over 600 trigs.

Mine is still high 260T with 250 trigs, but they said my problem was hereditary.

If I had loved dairy or greasy stuff, I'd been dead long ago.......
enie

What caused your problem with not being able to walk?