Statin question

A member on our website posted the following question:

A sensible approach.

Yes, I do love Him.

Humble servant of Christ,

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be associated with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago because 1. Going off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and even upped the dose the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every
50 heart attacks prevented one person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers are reversed, it is not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at least get a rough idea of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a liver (or other) problem vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

OK. I'll take a look at those. But can you tell me what they are. I could not find an author, but maybe I was not just looking in the right place. Are they peer reviewed? Are they a letter or a research report?

People are quite willing to say, when asked, whether or not they have had problems while taking statins. It is not hard to find people taking them, esp. when you sit in lipid clinic waiting rooms 45 mins past your appointment time. We talk amongst ourselve (to paraphrase)
Andrew, compare notes. Then there's the family members, all who have taken statins, and those posting on cardiology websites (yes, we the unannointed can get access) who have themselves, taken statins and suffered side effects and who wrestle with the conundrum, should I or shouldn't I: tell.

I did hear from one person, a family friend, that he did not have problems on lipitor. Then I heard from his wife and daughter of his memory problems and other concerns of theirs. So I sent them articles including the November Smart Money Magazine article only to have them them phone me immediately with serious and shocked concern, because the descriptions there, particularly of Michael Hope (one Sharon
Hope's husband) were exactly their husband and father's behaviour.
They had no idea statins could cause memory, thinking, learning, language, amnesia, and ocular problems, all of which this man had been experiencing. I have also read posts on many bulletin boards. Yes those people by and large suffer side effects, but not all the same ones, and many come there wondering if such and such they are suffering, after taking statins for 4 years could be caused by statins.
www.dispace.com/message_boards/drugs/Lipitor/ www.rxlist.com/boards/lipitor
www.

But to answer your question Andrew as to the reason why people would tell me, why because they were being interveiwed by me on that subject.

Congratulations on not getting your continuing medical education from pharma.

I remain truthful.

Perhaps you are Andrew. We all here have to judge each other on what we see here. From where I sit, you've sure as hell got cojones.

Here again, there's also: http://www.impostertrial.com/virtues.htm

Many of these articles are two or three years old, although there are some interesting articles like the one by Bea Golomb. She's running the UCSD Statin Study [ http://medicine.ucsd.edu/statin ] that will examine the effects -- positive or negative -- of statin cholesterol-lowering drugs on noncardiac outcomes -- including cognition (such as thinking ability and memory), mood, quality of life, and biochemistry (such as blood sugar and insulin). Have you joined this study? The findings are due next year.

As the founding member of the International CoenzymeQ10 Association,
Dr.ere again, there's also: http://www.impostertrial.com/virtues.htm

Many of these articles are two or three years old, although there are some interesting articles like the one by Bea Golomb. She's running the UCSD Statin Study [ http://medicine.ucsd.edu/statin ] that will examine the effects -- positive or negative -- of statin cholesterol-lowering drugs on noncardiac outcomes -- including cognition (such as thinking ability and memory), mood, quality of life, and biochemistry (such as blood sugar and insulin). Have you joined this study? The findings are due next year.

As the founding member of the International CoenzymeQ10 Association,
Dr. Langsjoen reccommends all those taking HMG CoA reductase inhibitors to take 100 to 200mg daily of CoQ10. Makes a lot of sense.
I take 150mg a day. While it tends to be an expensive supplement Sam's
Club sells it fairly cheaply.

I don't think I gave you these.

What is statin-induced myopathy http://www.impostertrial.com/physician.htm

Discussion of the cholesterol question: http://www.thincs.org/links.htm#about

Introduction to the Citizen's Petition on statins by Peter Langsjoen, MD
"Statins kill people - lots of people - and they wound many, many more" http://www.redflagsweekly.com/features/ 2002_july08P.html

You really ARE intimate with God, aren't you? Any other men in your life?

Another question is: How can you tell it's the statins? I was taking Lipitor a few years ago and was having significant back pain. I went off it completely (on my own) for about 6 weeks, but it made no difference. I think now it was arthritis. Now I'm having hip pain on the treadmill, so I cut back the Lipitor from 60 to 40 mg and cut back on Niacin. Things seem a little better, but I'm not sure. (I'm also taking CoQ-10)

So the point is: In mild to moderate cases it may be hard for the patient to identify the source of the problem. And in severe cases the Dr. has probably been made aware - and can try to confirm with blood work, etc.

My understanding is TI is saying primary prevention no, secondary prevention yes. Of course it's possible your muscle pain/joint pain is caused by something else. Have you had a sed rate test?

All of us who took statins were told our benefit would be greater than our risk. MFG

Therapeutics Initiative is an epidemiologists group, from a British
Columbia (Canada) medical school. As a group, and not just for these two studies, they are funded by the British Columbia Ministry of
Health. You can see on their site the many studies they have done on all kinds of drugs. Epidemilogists study all the studies, crunch the numbers and come up with a finding. So, they didn't actually go into a lab themselves. They study all the other studies, and come to a finding based on evidence. They are privvy to information not in the abstracts on www.pubmed.org, for example.

Go to http://www.ti.ubc.ca. That is the home page. I believe it sets out their mandate etc there.

The group is led by Dr. J. Wright, epidemiologist, and do this one thing only: assess studies and publish their findings. Dr. Wright, just prior to the publication of Therapeutics Initiative Letter #48 on statins, sent a warning letter to all physicians in British Columbia about statin side effects, and how little understood they were. He was warning the doctors to look closely at prescribing, because his group had found no reason to prescribe statins for prevention of cardiovascular disease.

I hope you are not affected by them. I hope you've just been working out too hard. But if you do think statins have affected an existing condition, or have created new problems, you will have more complete information to take to your doctor for a discussion.

If you wish e-mail me privately. Some of my e-mail addresses have an x. Remove it. (I'm catching on, slowly.)

OK. But my point was that pain a patient associates with a statin may not be really be associated with the statin. And I'm pretty sure that was true in my case from a few years ago because 1. Going off Lipitor for 6 weeks did not improve the pain. 2. After I went back on and even upped the dose the pain went away. (I have my own theories about this - having to do with furniture.)

However, it is true statins can cause muscle problems. It is also true it can prevent heart attacks. The real question is what's the trade off. If for every
50 heart attacks prevented one person has a severe muscle or liver problem, that, to me, is a fair trade off. If the numbers are reversed, it is not. Have there been any studies to show this that you know of? One could at least get a rough idea of a major problem by measuring the % of people taking statins who have a liver (or other) problem vs. those similarly situatuated who do not.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Going off statins for 2 1/2 years has only marginally removed my pain.
Going off statins does not remove the pain, because if it statin induced pain it results from cellular and muscle damage. Some people find the pain lessens, but does not go away. Similarly to pain caused by any profound injury.

Mitochondrial damage remained from six months to six years in Dr.
Phillips study subjects. See the Histopathology page of www.impostertrial.com. You access that by going into the for physician's section of his website. There you can read about the muscle biopsies done on people who had pain long after stopping statins, and see slides showing the damage.

Regarding your comment that statins PREVENT heart attacks, please read this study out of Therepeutics Initiative, funded by the British
Columbia Minstry of Health:
http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter48.htm

"Conclusions:
If cardiovascular serious adverse events are viewed in isolation, 71 primary prevention patients with cardiovascular risk factors have to be treated with a statin for 3 to 5 years to prevent one myocardial infarction or stroke.

This cardiovascular benefit is not reflected in 2 measures of overall health impact, total mortality and total serious adverse events.
Therefore, statins have not been shown to provide an overall health benefit in primary prevention trials."

Then read Therapeutics Initiative Letter No 49, http://www.ti.ubc.ca/pages/letter49.htm

"Conclusions:
Statins provide a cardiovascular and total mortality benefit for patients with clinically evident occlusive vascular disease (secondary prevention) and a cholesterol of >3.5 mM.

Large RCTs are required to test different statin dosing strategies for secondary prevention before making firm recommendations. "

Unfortunately those taking statins and not getting liver damage were not necessarily saved or prevented from cardiac arrest, or death from cardiac arrest. None of the people who did the Therapeutics Initiative study are paid by pharma.

Adverse reactions from statins are uncommon. And, when they occur, they are typically not dangerous except in the rare instances that they are ignored for several months if not years.

Would be glad to do that here, Patrick.

How did you come to know his cojones so well?

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$tatin$

Statin induced myopathy will not always show up with elevated CK or
ALT levels. To learn about statin induced myopathy without elevated levels go to
http://www.impostertrial.com

Especially read the Physicians site, and the Histopathology site where
Dr. Phillips discusses his theories of how this type of myopathy occurs. You can contact him and discuss your concerns.

Please also go to
http://forum.ditonline.com/viewtopic.php?TopicID=8492

and read about others who took lipitor, had their complaints dismissed, and now are disabled. This may not be what has happened to you, but those who are now disabled by statins were told it was arthritis, fibromyalgia, chronic fatigue syndrome, multiple sclerosis and more, until these were ruled out by appropriate testing. But what you are saying is what others, and I, have been through.

Also read on this board (sci.med.cardiology) the thread on 'muscle cramping at night'. I have there put out almost all that happened to me, while on pravachol, lipitor, baycol and zocor. You see, the doctors told me it would be discernible on blood work if my problem was from statins. They were wrong. They told me to stop for a couple weeks, and if it was statins, it would go away. They were wrong. They told me it was my back--they were right! The muscle weakening, wasting and atrophy there seriously affected my instrumented lumbar fusion and caused me a greater degree of spondylolisthesis.

On www.impostertrial.com there is contact information for Dr.
Phillips, where you can find out where you can get a muscle biopsy.
That is the diagnostic test for statin induced muscle myopathy.

Also go to this site to learn more about the unknown and misunderstood side effects of statins by the primary researcher in non-cardiac end point of statin use:
http://www.coloradohealthsite.org/topics/interviews/ golomb.html

Here is Dr. Golomb's contact information. Telephone and discuss your symptoms with her clinic to see if they think your problems are statin-induced.

UCSD Statin Study
3366 N. Torrey Pines Court, Ste. 110
San Diego, CA

(858) 558-4950

UCSD Statin Study
9500 Gilman Dr.
La Jolla, CA 92093-0995

web site for Dr. Golomb's statin study: http://medicine.ucsd.edu/statin/contactinfo.html

No Andrew they are not. They may be 'uncommon' in your practise (but we don't know really what that is, do we) but not as a whole. Although product monographs cite 2-5 percent, I think from feedback I have received it is much higher, approaching 25 per cent who still have side effects (mitochondrial damage, liver damage, coenzyme q10 depletion, cholesterol lowering to the brain, where cholesterol is most important) years after stopping statins; and another percentage, who, yes do come off them in time to reverse damage to some extent.

However, the total of these two groups is I think very, very high. I know virtually no one who has taken statins and not experienced side effects to a greater or lesser degree. I am a working journalist. I have informally polled many lipid clinics and ask everyone I know who does health writing to do the same. What I hear is "yes" and also: "we didn't know this (fill in the blank)was from statins because the doctor didn't know". I am a member of three private listserves, where physicians have readily admitted they were snowed on statins, and by the way, resent it, because it places them in jeopardy.

And this brings me to the second huge problem with statins and other drugs as well: medical schools, medical research, text books, lab equipment, and grants to universities with medical schools are overwhelmed if not completely controlled with Pharma money. Go against this, and you pay. Ask Dr. David Healy, and Dr. Nancy Olivieri (google them.) Both tried to protect patients in clinical trials from harmful dangerous drugs which kill, and lost their contracts, were sued, and the trials continued, forcing both these people to the media. They both by the way won.

Furthermore, physician's contininug medical education is brought to them by detail men, and pharma sponsored seminars, workshops, weekend conferences in expensive watering holes and other pimped junkets.
(www.nofreelunch.org). Practising physicians, cardiologists too, don't know what the real case is with statins or do know, turn the other way and pocket the cheque. Even on www.theheart.org, cardiologigists themselves have taken statins and discuss the deleterious side-effects, and what to tell patients and keep the skin on their respective behinds.

From thalidomide, to DES, to HRT to statins, from ulcer medical research to cholesterol research, much re-thinking and re-eduating must be done.

Have you read the LA Times stories on corruption in the National
Institutes of Health? Do so, and then tell me this is not endemic. The whole system needs to be changed Andrew, before you can say anything about any drug, with any certainty.

Many people, especially of the age group that is prescribed statins, will not over-ride their doctors say-so and stop taking them on their own. And they are told, by physicians who get their education from the above sources, statins don't do that, or if they do, stop taking them for two weeks, and if it's statins, it'll go away. Like merde it will.

People have been so frightened by the misleading, corrupt studies done on statins, with suppression of the negative side effects in what is written, often by 'medical ghost-writers' (http://www.cbc.ca/consumers/market/files/health/ ghostwriting/ that they, the consumers, do not know what to believe and are further terrified by direct-to-consmer advertising which implies that if you don't take these drugs you will die. (Go to www.healthyskepticism.org.) Just this week, the FDA has slapped a
Pharma for just such misleading advertising about a cancer drug. But log onto the FDA site, or Health Canada, and read the many many similar injunctions. For statins, for cancer drugs, for drug after drug after drug.

Where do you get your continuing medical education Andrew? For statins, I know the answer: thank your God for Sharon Hope, Al Lohse, and to a lesser extent me. We'll educate you in spite of yourself.
Because we like and respect you and think you could be one of the good ones.

Thank you for the information and your concern. I've looked through the
Therapeutics Initiative Letters and what they appear to be saying is that if you have high cholesterol or clogged arteries you SHOULD be taking statins.
(This is my situation.) If you don't, you should not because the risks outweigh the benefits. That makes sense to me.

Getting back to my original point. I think you would agree that it is possible for a patient to misidentify statins as the cause of muscle pain. I point to myself as a likely example - in part because a while after I went back on statins, the particular pain I thought might be due to statins went away. In any case, it is obvious that someone on statins can get arthritis - quite independently of the statins. However, I do agree with you that there are risks to statins and, to me, it comes down to a risk/benefit trade-off.

They are God's "cojones"

You'll have to take my word for it. Either you believe I am truthful or you don't. You can certainly Google up enough of my posts to make a fair determination.

Why would folks *not* having an adverse reaction provide you with any feedback?

For that matter, why would anyone provide you feedback, Mfg?

<snip>

From the American Board of Internal Medicine, from the American Heart Association, from the American College of Cardiology, from reading peer-reviewed journals, from my own clinical research, and *not* from the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't know about your "good" but I remain truthful.

Humble servant of Christ,