Spacedoc

Much to their dismay these pains have persisted years after they stopped the offending drug. They are but two of thousands of people in this growing subgroup with persistent and apparently permanent muscle symptoms seemingly triggered by statin drug use. Current research indicates that many of these have an unsuspected genetic predisposition. Some of these cases respond to CoQ10, many do not. Another growing reality is that of peripheral neuropathy, particularly unresponsive to treatment, coming on soon after statin therapy is initiated. Once this occurs, not only does it seems to be permanent but tends to worsen in many patients.

Hundreds of victims are incapacitated, even crippled by this unfortunate side effect, seemingly related to alterations in CoQ10 availability brought on by statin drug interference with the mevalonate pathway. On hearing hundreds of complaints about doctor rebuff on this subject of statin side effects, I well recall the words of Doctor Ellsworth Amidon, my professor of medicine at Vermont College of Medicine, way too many years ago: Over 12, reader posts: Articles and messages on this site are for information and education purposes only and should not be used to diagnose or treat any illness, disease, or other medical condition.

Recommendations, statements and other opinions expressed on this site have not been evaluated by the U. Food and Drug Administration. Products, including vitamins, minerals and other dietary supplements, and any statements made about those products on this page and throughout this site have not been evaluated by the United States Food and Drug Administration and are not intended to diagnose, treat, cure or prevent disease.

Always consult with a qualified medical professional before making medication, diet, dietary supplement, exercise, or lifestyle changes or decisions. Trademarks and service marks including, without limitation, the individual names of products and companies are the property of their respective owners.

1. Radio Jingle Truths Exposed?
2. Untot mit Biss: Roman (Cassie Palmer) (German Edition).
3. Flamme dArgent (Policier) (French Edition).

Contact To contact site administrator regarding technical or other aspects of this site, e-mail to site spacedoc. Kilmer McCully - Cholesterol - Pt. Trademarks and service marks including, without limitation, the individual names of products and companies are the property of their respective owners. Contact To contact site administrator regarding technical or other aspects of this site, e-mail to site spacedoc. Kilmer McCully - Cholesterol - Pt. What Should Your Cholesterol Be? Sinatra - CoQ10, and Carnitine Dr.

How Low is Too Low?

Statin Drugs Side Effects Review 1 Statin Drugs Side Effects Review 2 Statin Drugs Side Effects Review 3 Magic of Cholesterol Special Importance of CoQ10 CoQ10 Inhibition to Mitochondrial Mutations Oh yes if you do not believe me read the NEJM paper and its Table 3 very very carefully and then you can do a little arithmetic. The result is that in later years this ratio becomes highly significant - something to be avoided at all costs - remember BAYCOL a statin that killed and was taken off the market!

1. The Tenant and Landlord Handbook.
2. ;
3. Dei Ex Machina (Zenith Book 1)!
4. ;
5. .
6. The McAuley Quadrant Magazines 1957-1961!
7. About Dr. Mintz.

Also, Pharma companies are notorious for cutting studies off early when there's supposedly near-miraculous evidence of a drug's effectiveness. But that's a load of bull -- and a new study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association shows that the only miracle here is that these companies are allowed to get away with such shenanigans. When researchers compared shortened studies to similar trials that went the distance, they found that the speed course exaggerated drug effectiveness by an average of 30 percent.

• .
• My Statin Story!
• .
• Spacedoc (Dr. Graveline-NASA) Book on Wonders of Cholesterol & Dark Side of Statins.
• ;

Some meds even looked twice as good in shortened studies, and other drugs managed to look effective when they actually didn't work at all. Talk about a miracle! Mike, Death, while the ultimate endpoint, is very difficult to show statistical significance in any intervention trial. The study was not designed to show a mortality benefit. It was designed to show a decrease in cardiovascular events like heart attack and stroke. About 5 years of statin treatment typically prevented these major vascular events in: You need to look at the risk benefit ratio, and specifically in the case of statins, the risk benefit ratio is still quite good, because despite extremely rare events like transient global amnesia, most patient have no side effects from statins, with the exception of mild muscle pain which usuall goes away.

Most of my patients given these numbers would take the statin.

The Dangers of Statins (Cholesterol lowering statin drugs Side Effects LDL cholesterol Myth CoQ10)

The stopping boundary was crossed at the first prespecified efficacy evaluation, and on March 29, , the independent data and safety monitoring board voted to recommend termination of the trial. Finally, Crestor is not even close to Baycol. This should have been a signal not to approve the drug. Crestor, which is much more potent, was studied extensively post-Baycol and this signal was not found.

As a consumer I give little to no credibility to drug company funded studies. When looking at individual patients it becomes impossible to prove a fatal event was averted simply because they were taking a statin. However, we can better measure the effectiveness of statins by looking at the population as a whole, and examining changes in trends of death rates from coronary artery disease prior to, and after the introduction of statins.

This gives us a 40 year time line and the BIG picture. Using graphed data from the Centers for Disease Control, and provided that data is accurate, there in no change in the downward trend of death rates from coronary artery disease for a period of 20 years prior, and 20 years after the introduction of statins.

Just one consumer's perspective. Thanks for allowing me to share my viewpoint on the matter. I never gave much credibility to drug company sponsored trials. Conflicts of interest run high. Statin drugs have always had very high NNT scores. When looking at individual patients it becomes impossible to prove a fatal event was averted because they were taking a statin. However, looking at the population as a whole, we can measure the effectiveness of statins by examining changes in trend of death rates from coronary artery disease prior to, and after the introduction of statins.

This is a 40 year timeline and shows the BIG picture Using graphed data from the Centers for Disease Control, there is no visible change in the downward trend of death rates from coronary artery disease for a period of 20 years prior, and 20 years after the introduction of statins. Absurdly high NNT scores, High rates of consumer complaints from side effects, and no visible enhancement on the decline of death rates over the last 20 years doesn't exactly sell me on spending my money on these drugs. You would be hard pressed to do much worse.

Robert, Thanks for your comments. First, you should realize that almost all data on drug therapies comes from the drug companies. NIH or other non-biased groups simply don't do this kind of research. Not sure what your exactly looking at on the CDC website. Please provide the link. Most data show an increase rate in decline for CV death, particularly if just looking at myocardial infarctions, and many experts attribute this to statins.

Also, even if we assume that there has been a steady decline in death from heart disease before and after the introduction of statins, your logic is flawed because there are many things that have dramatically increased obesity, diabetes,etc. Thus, a steady decline would be unexpected without statins. Even if statins showed absolutely no mortality benefit, you are completely discounting their clear benefit in preventing heart attacks. Don't know if you have ever had a heart attack, but they are very scary and costly life-altering experiences in which most patients have decreased functioning if they survive.

If statins can prevent heart attacks and not save even one life, they are worth it. Finally, "high patient complaints" is not based on any data. If you look at all the data, the side effect profile of statins is pretty good. No side effects in the thousands of patients that took a high dose statin. Mintz, Thanks again for allowing me to post my consumer view on statins. At bthe bottom of this posting is the link you requested. I had said" CDC Graphs. I meant to say NIH. NIH publishes a web page with the graphs I was referring to. Its a long page, so you will have to scroll down to access the heart attack graphs.

There are five graphs: Deaths from cardiovascular disease U. Death rates from cardiovascular disease U. Age adjusted death rates of cardiovascular disease. Death rates in men, selected countries. Death rates women, selected countries. I am merely pointing out my observation that statins introduced around had no impact on the downward trend in death rates from coronary artery disease in every single graph. A high school student is capable of making this observation. Has someone somewhere benefitted from statins?

But on the big scale, I don't view the drugs as making any impact on the population as a whole. Here is the link: Robert, Thanks for the link. Do you not acknowledge heart attack and stroke are significant? You keep referring to death as if anything that doesn't decrease death is worthless. Your logic that statins have no impact on mortality because the steady decline in CV death is unchanged pre- and post-statins is flawed.

What do you attribute this decline to? Clearly it's not because we are healthier than we were in the 50's with the exception of smoking. Let's say smoking has affected this and it has. What you would see is a decline in the CV death rate from or some other time point, but eventually the decline would plateau, since smoking or any other single factor attributes only a certain percent to CV death.

In fact, we continue to see a steady decline year after year. And the reason is complex. It is not just one factor that has led to this, but many factors which we continue to make improvements in. It's better inpatient treatment of MI's before most patients admitted with a heart attack died, now most do not , better blood pressure control with medications, use of aspirin, and very importantly statins. Ask any person with a medical degree, even the most unbiased, anti-pharma, liberal physician; and they will tell you that statins have played a major role in reducing CV disease, including death.

The answer lies somewhere in between we should put statins in the water to only use them in patients with extremely high risk for heart attack and stroke. Mintz, Absolutely heart attacks and strokes are significant. In no way was my observatation of the steady decline in CV death rates pre and post statin meant to minimize the significance of these events. Once again, I am simply pointing out an observation that the introduction of statins around did nothing to enhance the decline rate on the population as a whole.

To answer your question, I believe the decrease in smoking is primarily responsible for the decrease of CV deaths from to , and continued to have a positive impact all the way to year The smoking decline rate graphs correspond beautifully with the reduction in CV death rate graphs. I would also agree that medical intervention to save lives has improved over the years, contributing to the decline. But I don't view statins as having a role in the decline. But hey, thats just my opinion.

I'm just sharing my viewpoint. Didn't intend it as a debate. I am a "heart attack survivor"--nearly ten years and pretty much unimpaired. My cholesterol level was in an average range at the time. I was put on Mevacor of course. Having read about the possible relationship between statin drugs and memory loss, I discontinued taking the med. In about two weeks, I could feel the fog clear from my brain and the muscle pain was almost gone although it took a year to regain full range of motion in my arms.

I also had great frustration in getting my doctors to take my experience seriously. I personally know other people which similar experiences, most of which, again, are not taken seriously. A cousin, also in his 60's, who had a heart attack about the same time as I did, scared me the last time I saw him. He took almost four hours to make a trip that normally took 45 minutes because he got on a wrong road and wouldn't believe my repeated attempts to tell him, and then couldn't remember how to find the place we were going--somewhere he had been a number of times before.

He is on major statin meds and he and his doctor don't believe he is impaired. His family is very convinced and very worried. The point of overall mortality rate information compared to CV deaths is significant, as statin drugs do affect other physiological processes. Based on my own experiences and a number of other friends and family members, I am not convinced that statin drugs are worth the risks.

Spacedoc (Dr. Graveline-NASA) Book on Wonders of Cholesterol & Dark Side of Statins

I'm interested in this subject and so found my way here. While it may be true that each individual side effect is extremely rare, perhaps these side effects in aggregate outweigh the benefits. If that were to be true, then statins would not be such a bargain. Specifically, I had rhabdomyolosis about six weeks ago, and the consequent myoglobinuria that lasted for at least several days.

And I've just gotten it again, three days ago. I'm just not sure why. I am 62 and I had a heart attack a year and a half ago, with one stent placed in a coronary artery. I was placed on statins after the heart attack, and with my cardiologist's permission earlier this year, I've been taking niacin my cardiologist prescribed mg a day, which seems high, now that I've looked into it.

One year ago, I needed two additional stents. To me, it seemed that my statin had failed. I started on intensive glycemic control. BP control atorvastatin 20 mg. My numbers have been good tc ldl I had a thallium scan reported as Normal. Khanna, There is significant evidence to suggest that the Lipitor may have prevented a heart attack or stroke in you.

Only Crestor at max dose has shown the ability to possibly reverse plaque. Since you have known CAD and high risk, you should be on the highest possible statin dose that you can tolerate. You should ask your physician or cardiologist to go back down on your Lipitor dose or switch to Crestor. Dear Dr Mintz, I highly appreciate prompt response, My only question is having started statin therapy eight years ago and lifestyle measures i cannot imagine the plaques existed eight years ago and they just stabilized although i seem it have significant single vessel stenosis with a normal perfusion scan.

I am concerned at the apparent progression. If the quality of life deteriorates to the extent it has to reach ldl levels i being a medical professional myself have to question the validity of this treatment. I have many friends in the invasive cardiology circles they all are aware of msc problem but sort of dismissive, I have researched many net clinical trails report low incidence of AE however the patient community including myself ie any one and anybody taking statins experience msc problems over time i would be appreciative if the medical community address this in objective manner and not suggest crestor with mac and fries thanks regards.

It is impossible to prove that a cardiac event didn't take place because a person was takinga statin. Why would you make such an irresponsible statement? This is interesting reading but as a person who, just three months ago, had only leg weakness and pain to complain about - and am now debilitated by pain and weakness in both arms, neck and shoulders, I can safely say I am sure I am suffering statin side effects.

Doctors and drug companies may agree or disagree, but we patients are the ones suffering and waiting for some kind of support and treatment. The worst part of all this is the ignorance or stubbornness of the medical community which for the most part denies the relationship of muscle pain and statins, and then offers no 'cure' for the side effects except perhaps some vague suggestion of supplements and the passage of time.

Featured Articles

No one speaks of alternatives to drug therapy for high cholesterol. If given a choice of suffering with this constant pain or having the potential for a heart attack, I'd likely take my chances for the latter. I may not die, would have some medical support, and perhaps would recover and be better for the experience. When you haven't the strength to lift up a coffee cup, you see things from a different perspective.

Why doesn't the medical profession encourage better lifestyle choices - the ones we know will lower our cholesterol in natural ways? Instead, they just prescribe Lipitor and send you on your way It's unlikely a person would equate the pain and weakness they currently experience with a drug they have been taking 7 days a week, days a year.

I wish my doctor would have been brave enough to equate my symptoms with Lipitor's listed side effects. Instead, he set the wheels of referrals in motion: I can't help but wonder if my physician were better informed about these side effects and had taken me off the statin months ago, would I now be closer to recovery if recovery is possible? Thanks for allowing my post. Phyllis, I feel for you and muscle pain you are feeling. There is a simple formula to get physicians to listen to the patients. Spend more money entertaining your physician than the drug company does.

I say that light hearted, but in reality its a sad truth. We live in a world where money talks. Oh trust me, if everyone did this, patients would now have their doctor's attention. What evidence is there for this assertion, "Phyllis? Every doctor tells her or his patients to make better lifestyle choices. Those who turn a deaf ear to patient suffering from statins, will one day cry themselves, and not be heard. By the way, Mommy Phyllis' comments, above, about suffering side effects from statins, are also suspect for another reason: When you click through on the links provided, you travel to a slick looking website that makes money by selling food supplements to offset the side effects of statins.

So "Phyllis''" anecdotal evidence about statin use should be taken with a grain of salt. I am still thoroughly confused about the efficacy of statins. I've had rabdo admittedly after very prolonged physical activity. A few months ago my doctor switched me to a different statin, after the FDA warned a high dose of Simvastin could lead to muscle pain, which in fact I experienced. Mintz, that researchers thought Simvastin was nothing like Baycol.

Yet we see that the are problems with Simvastatin, too, that have come to light with real-world use of the drug. My dad had heart disease. I know I have plaque in my coronary arteries. I had a heart attack. Plaque in other areas of my coronary arteries necessitated two more stents eight months after my heart attack and I was on 40mg of Simvastatin at the time. And my heart attack came after more than two years of serious daily personal stress.

While my genes are the same, the stress is gone, so I wonder if statins are of any benefit to me. I worry about underreported side effects, like my muscle pain. When in saw my cardiologist and asked him about the Simvastain warning which had just come out, he told me, without questioning from me, that reports of muscle pain were underrated. And he thought the weird muscle pains I reported to him - painful arm and shoulder muscles on wakeup - were related to my statin use. Sometimes I feel like I am a global warming denier, when I think statins are dangerous drugs that only make money for drug companies, while helping only a few high risk patients.

At other times, I think that not being able to ride my bike anymore because of clogged arteries is a good reason to take the high dose of the statin I'm on now.

spacedoc.com

The reputed potential ability of 80mg of a statin to halt or reverse the growth of plaque seems like a good reason to take the drug. In any event, I see compelling but contradictory evidence offered from both sides of the debate about the efficacy and safety of statins. Given that my own condition seems atypical from those who are tested with statins, I do worry about their effect on me.

However, I don't worry because of comments by posters like "Phyllis. Dave, my hat is off to anybody who can ride their bike miles in a day. I'm also anxious to see how Dr. Mintz responds to your post. Excellent post by the way. Your situation reminds me of stories I have heard about where marathon runners with no risk factors develop artery plaque. It serves as a stark reminder to me that we still have yet to nail down a definitive underlying cause for atherosclerosis.