I now we occasionally have people posting on here who are worried when prescribed statins. Some interesting reseach...
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-54951648
This stuff is bonkers but real. Placebo works both ways
One I particularly like is antibiotics are more effective when given as 2x 250 mg than 1x 500mg!
I'm on a low dose as I'm genetically prone to high cholesterol. Absolutely no side effects in the 18 months I've been on them. Both parents are on them.
Aren't they made on that island?
interesting read
I am also genetically prone to high cholesterol so take statins. I used to get aches and pains and some of the symptoms described. And they were real before I knew it was a thing.
The type p I’ve been given has been changed recently and the pains etc have markedly decreased.
interesting read
Malhotra is another one of those scientits whose views are very much out on a limb. He's been debunked in quite a lot of places.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2018/oct/30/butter-nonsense-the-rise-of-the-cholesterol-deniers
molgrips
Full Member
Aren’t they made on that island?
Good work, sir!
About 9 yrs ago my (obese) GP prescribed them for me, my triglycerides were so high they couldn't measure the cholesterol types.
I changed my diet and exercise ... next test I was well into the healthy levels.
Just had 2 rounds of serology for other stuff and cholestrol was chucked in and still "healthy"
Cholesterol-denying is sort of like anti-vaxxers. Cherry-picked data in online opinion articles like the one linked to up there ^^^.
How about some proof that lowering cholesterol is good for you?
Statins: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109706011752
Newer, posher drugs: https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1801174
The argument is not whether lowering cholesterol is good for you (it is), or whether doing this with exercise / diet or drugs is better (open to debate), it's whether the downsides of treatment (cost, side-effects) warrant treatment on the scale that the NHS currently engages in. This is open to debate and absolutely depends on an individual's attitude to risk, medications, liberty etc. Notably, and ironically, as we increase statin uptake for lower risk individuals, we reduce the per-patient benefit of statins so the (small risk of) adverse effects are therefore weighed against a less robust benefit, increasing skepticism and probably reducing uptake in those who are most likely to benefit.
What is clear, and has been highlighted by the OP's link, is that the risk of true* side-effects is very complex, and in the case of statins, almost certainly overstated.
Ironically, given the whole 'big-pharma' and vested interests narrative, I'm sure that(prominent cholesterol skeptic) Malhotra is more likely to personally make money by promoting his anti-cholesterol rhetoric than if he were a researcher of (E.g.) statins.
* With the caveat that nocebo side-effects are still truly experienced by patients and I certainly wouldn't want to undermine that.
my triglycerides were so high they couldn’t measure the cholesterol types.
I changed my diet and exercise … next test I was well into the healthy levels.
That's good. Triglycerides are very sensitive to diet - if you have eaten the wrong things (or drunk alcohol) the night before the test, the level is likely to be increased. Cholesterol levels are much harder to alter.