Posts moved from the SSRI thread
This may be slightly off topic but has anyone views on the use of statins because they work (or so I understand) by affecting liver function. The medical profession in general is very much in favour of this drug but I think a little scepticism is in order with any “wonder drug”. Any personal experiences please?
As with SSRIs what seem to be the motivating factor is big revenues at big pharma with paid doctors as consultants.
Here’s some comments on statins from an independent researcher:
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol/
Can recommend this book written by a professor at the Nordic Cochrane Institute:
https://www.amazon.com/Deadly-Medicines-Organised-Crime-Healthcare/dp/1846198844
Michael_J wrote:
As with SSRIs what seem to be the motivating factor is big revenues at big pharma with paid doctors as consultants.
I think you are on the wrong track. Statins are relatively cheap drugs because most of the popular ones are off patent and widely available from multiple manufacturers of generic drugs.
It is still about making money on selling medicine to people who really don’t need them and with side effects as a result. But again that then sells other medications to help on the side effects.
Thirty years ago, Henry Gadsden, the head of Merck, one of the world’s largest drug companies, told Fortune magazine that he wanted Merck to be more like chewing gum maker Wrigley’s. It had long been his dream to make drugs for healthy people so that Merck could “sell to everyone.”.
“Greed is good”
- Gordon Gecko (Wall Street movie)
‘Need’ is an interesting term. They’re not like insulin where if you need it and don’t take it you die. On the other hand, assuming they do provide the benefits they claim (improved health in old age) then lots of people are likely to see the value in that, whether or not they strictly ‘need’ them.
There’s a criticism that drug companies are less likely to concentrate on medicines that are used briefly (e.g. new antibiotics) in favour of ’lifelong’’ medicines that are much more profitable. But that’s a separate issue from whether they work or not. They’re thought to have an anti-inflammatory action which is perhaps more important than their action on cholesterol levels.
My feeling is that some people feel fine on them; others really do feel lousy. When my time comes I’ll try them. If the side effects are significant I’ll try a different statin or two before giving up if I don’t find one that suits. They’re not mandatory, and you can give them a try before deciding whether to continue. Severe side effects are rare and usually give some warning so you can stop the statin before any long-term damage occurs.
Haven’t we now once and for all determined that LDL cholesterol values have no correlation whatsoever to higher cardiovascular disease? In fact, heart disease has increased since we were told to not eat saturated fat, eat more grains and go on statins. This during a time when smoking has also decreased significantly. Go figure.
As someone who has done extensive (laboratory, not clinical and not funded by pharma companies) research on one of the main side effects of statins, myopathy, and published a couple of research papers on the topic, I have also followed the clinical literature on statins. My view is similar to that of @kwlf . IMO there is no question that they are effective in lowering cholesterol values and decreasing the risk of certain cardiovascular diseases. There are also other beneficial effects which do not seem to directly related to the lower cholesterol level. True, they have potentially serious side effects, whose frequency is higher than what the pharmaceutical companies officially state, but (much) lower than what some anti-advocates claim. Also, in almost all cases, there are warning signs before anything really serious happens, and changing the statin to another one usually takes care of the problem. I am hopefully a few decades away from having to take them regularly, but I would have no problem taking them myself. Of course if find the idea – advocated by a tiny fraction of pharma-supported doctors – that basically all adults should be put on statins, no matter the cholesterol levels or risk factors, egregious.
It is also true that most statins are now available as generic drugs and therefore they are cheap. E.g. in Hungary the monthly cost for the therapy is ca. 5 EUR, including the part paid by the patient and the part paid by the national health insurer.
AdamFrisch wrote:
Haven’t we now once and for all determined that LDL cholesterol values have no correlation whatsoever to higher cardiovascular disease?
No, especially for the highlighted part.
A far as Big Pharma goes my opinion is that all they want of the patient is enough of a perceived benefit for them to take the next dose.
As to use of statins, there is no way in hell I would take them, or any other medication for that matter, where my consumption was just a matter of age grouping/risk factors. In a case where they were prescribed following a medical event, eg. mycocardial infarction, I think I would be looking to change my lifestyle longterm rather than wanting to submit to lifelong medication.
In a case where they were prescribed following a medical event, eg. mycocardial infarction, I think I would be looking to change my lifestyle longterm rather than wanting to submit to lifelong medication.
Well that’s obviously the case for many/most drugs.
But changing a lifestyle is really hard, for most people. Especially if there is no buy-in from their OH/family and the same crap food gets cooked and put on the table every day.
In exactly those circumstances, a friend lives on statins now while continuing to eat the same grease food as before. And I suspect lots of people do that. Statins are pushed as a magic substance: take a pill and you can live as before. The national health service doesn’t have the time to tell a 150kg patient that, ahem, the reason they are sick (usually with multiple issues) is due to the 150kg. In the UK, from what I can see, even just saying such a thing (by a GP) would not be allowed until maybe a year ago.
This year there was a programme on the TV about GPs working with their patients. One of them, faced with a patient who was obviously in a right state due to not having seen what we might call “food” for years if ever, was asked whether she is taking supplements for this or that!
Anyway I am not a doctor so must not rant 
Peter wrote:
The national health service doesn’t have the time to tell a 150kg patient that, ahem, the reason they are sick (usually with multiple issues) is due to the 150kg. In the UK, from what I can see, even just saying such a thing (by a GP) would not be allowed until maybe a year ago.
It isn’t that they ’don’t have time’. And of course there are no restrictions on GPs telling patients they’re overweight. It’s sadly the case that it would often be counter-productive, and obesity could be related to any number of other issues, such as depression (not solved by telling the to ‘pull themselves together’).
Peter wrote:
This year there was a programme on the TV about GPs working with their patients. One of them, faced with a patient who was obviously in a right state due to not having seen what we might call “food” for years if ever, was asked whether she is taking supplements for this or that!
I’ve not seen the programme, but there could be any number of reasons why a GP would ask a patient if they’re taking supplements. In any event, reality TV wouldn’t last long if there wasn’t some controversy and ammunition for the viewers.
