You are welcome. I did take them for several years and the effects became so bad,I stopped.
I developed the early stage rhabdomyolysis . Hateastatn could have bloody killed me!
I gave the Dr. a list of all my symptoms.
She then wanted me to take Crestor. I refused. I'd rather be locked in a room with a rabid raccoon than take them again.
I think they are dangerous and should be pulled from the market and heads should roll at the companies selling these things and ceo's should go to prison. But just follow all those links on that page and you will be stunned.
Do you really think that medical decisions should be based on what you read in Express, Daily Mail and the likes? Yes, there was a single recent publications doubting the benefits of statins. But that's the way it works in science - eveything should and can be doubted. That doesn't mean that we should jump to conclusions and disregard, for example, 14 independent trials ( I attached a link) that have shown benefits and safety of statins.
There's an overall consensus on safety and very significant benefit of statins. Yes, some patients will get side effects and I am sorry if you did experience some of them. But the benefit massively outweighs the risk, so don't avoid statins purely because of fear. You have every right not to take statins or do just about anything else with your body. But for your own good, do some reading, check the facts, apply some critical thinking and do take everything that you read with a grain of salt.
Do you really think that medical decisions should be based on what you read in Express, Daily Mail and the likes?
Is your concern really the messenger? Or the message?
Yes, there was a single recent publications doubting the benefits of statins.
There's no harm in considering who stands better to benefit from statins and what the risks are. Research, national and international guidelines both private and public, issued and updated in recent years, are coming to a far more nuanced conclusion than you imply here.
But for your own good, do some reading, check the facts, apply some critical thinking and do take everything that you read with a grain of salt.
No harm in that. Nor in admitting that statins are oversold.
Yes, most of the studies are fully or partially funded by the pharmaceutical industry. This is how the system works - they have to design, conduct and fund studies to demonstrate efficacy of their drugs. And, yes, there have been cases when studies have been misleading. This is not a perfect system. But you can't use that to disregard the evidence you don't like.
What I am asking you and others is not to trust pharmaceutical industry, me or anyone else blindly. Especially, not express or daily mail. And do not draw conclusions from individual experiences - yes, rhabdomyolysis is a well known and documented side effect but it is very rare.
What I am saying is that right now the evidence used by express to write this attention grabbing article is weak at most. For example, the publication this is based upon has a section "EARLY STATIN TRIALS MAY HAVE BEEN FLAWED". To make the claims this publication makes, this section should provide in depth analysis and evidence for the aforementioned statement. Yet, the only thing the authors provide is few attention grabbing statements that are not backed up by data, nor analysis but only a reference to a kindle ebook by Lorgeril. This is not science, this is a publicity stunt and fearmongering.
You suggest we disregard tens and tens of huge trials because they have been funded by industry. But what about all the academics, people working for government and even doctors and nurses who worked making sure that these trials are honest and not misleading? Are all of them corrupt and dishonest as well? There will always be evidence for and against something, but if there's 1000 pieces of evidence saying that statins can do good and 10 pieces of evidence saying that the only do harm, it is wrong and unethical to disregard the evidence you do not like.
And yes, we should pay attention to every new piece of evidence that comes to our attention, but every new bit of evidence has to be validated and confirmed before we draw any conclusions. But doing that is boring and wouldn't make all these attention grabbing headlines the public craves so much.
Having said all that, there is a very interesting discussion and research on whether statins should also be given to patients with low risk of cardiovascular disease. This discussion has started because now statins are cheap (they are off patent so pharmaceutical industry can't make huge profits from them), we have data over many years showing that they are safe. We need more research, analysis and discussion to determine the benefit and decide for or against it.
Independent as in "not depending on another for livelihood or subsistence". As I said previously, most of the large studies are funded by industry because the law requires them to.
"ultimate issue is a risk-benefit ratio where the benefit looks relatively small" - This is very true, risk-benefit is what matters. If you look into research, there is significant documented benefit for at risk population; and for low risk population it's still being studied and debated.
"potentially dangerous side effects over an extended period" - side effects are well documented and considered low risk. If you could provide the exact scientific evidence you are referring to, we can discuss this in more detail.
So for at risk patient, right now the equation works as "demonstrated benefit" and "low risk", thus statins are widely prescribed and used.
I am not explaining myself well at all! ;) I mean as in these are separate studies - in different countries, hospitals, with different scientists and so on.
Do you really think that's the only article I have read on this subject?
I have been reading about statins for years,the good,the bad and the ugly.
As to critical thinking,yup,it was critical thinking and weighing the pros and cons that caused me to decide not to take them again.
You are welcome. I did take them for several years and the effects became so bad,I stopped. I developed the early stage rhabdomyolysis . Hateastatn could have bloody killed me! I gave the Dr. a list of all my symptoms. She then wanted me to take Crestor. I refused. I'd rather be locked in a room with a rabid raccoon than take them again. I think they are dangerous and should be pulled from the market and heads should roll at the companies selling these things and ceo's should go to prison. But just follow all those links on that page and you will be stunned.
Do you really think that medical decisions should be based on what you read in Express, Daily Mail and the likes? Yes, there was a single recent publications doubting the benefits of statins. But that's the way it works in science - eveything should and can be doubted. That doesn't mean that we should jump to conclusions and disregard, for example, 14 independent trials ( I attached a link) that have shown benefits and safety of statins.
There's an overall consensus on safety and very significant benefit of statins. Yes, some patients will get side effects and I am sorry if you did experience some of them. But the benefit massively outweighs the risk, so don't avoid statins purely because of fear. You have every right not to take statins or do just about anything else with your body. But for your own good, do some reading, check the facts, apply some critical thinking and do take everything that you read with a grain of salt.
Is your concern really the messenger? Or the message?
There's no harm in considering who stands better to benefit from statins and what the risks are. Research, national and international guidelines both private and public, issued and updated in recent years, are coming to a far more nuanced conclusion than you imply here.
No harm in that. Nor in admitting that statins are oversold.
[This comment was removed]
Do you really think that's the only article I have read on this subject? I have been reading about statins for years,the good,the bad and the ugly. As to critical thinking,yup,it was critical thinking and weighing the pros and cons that caused me to decide not to take them again.