Part of the "tumult" is because the drug companies don't like it when you can 'grow your own'. So they pressured the FDA to ban the stuff. And, if it works for you that's great. But another wrinkle is cost: Your insurance will probably pay for a statin but not for a "supplement". Plus, even if you don't have insurance, a few of the statins have gone generic so they have become pretty cheap. So, a manufactured statin may be cheaper for you than Red Rice Yeast. the main thing is to improve your cholesterol numbers. it's not a guarantee -- but it does improve your chances...

The WORST side-effect I got from Zocor were the Gout-like symptoms, in my right foot. I rarely ever eat red meat and the swelling with excruciating pain kept me off the bike and in crutches, for nearly a month.

I *****canned every pill I had and has never looked back. Free yourself from that man-made suicide tablet...

My mother and some friends have had success with Provex CV. It kept her from going on statins

We all try to stay off the pharmaceuticals. Provex CV is a food supplement.

If you are up for a lengthy analysis -
Department of Cardiovascular Medicine and Department of Animal Sciences, University of Wisconsin.

The product
https://content.melaleuca.com/wc/pdf/ProVexCV_REDO2.pdf

I don't dispute threads like this can be interesting, and I too enjoy hearing others' experiences, but I guess I just worry about someone chucking life-saving medications based on anecdotal evidence. A lot of conditions like high blood pressure, high blood sugar, or high cholesterol are termed 'silent killers' for good reason. Not treating a condition may well make you feel better in the short run, but cause bigger problems down the road.

Anecdotal evidence must be taken with a pound of salt. The evidence may well be true, or perceived to be true, for the individual that ir applies too, but it's not wise to use as evidence for a population.

I do not accept anecdotal evidence at face value. But I recognize it as an example of experience. Sort of the school of hard knocks...

Conversely, I do not blindly accept medical style "evidence" either. It is often biased and incomplete.

My anecdotal evidence for that is:
In 1997 my doctor gave me a sales pitch about how I should be taking a statin called Baycol because it would save my life and they were "so safe they should be added to the drinking water". (And he was and is a pretty darn good physician who I trust). While he was giving me the sales pitch a drug rep was standing directly behind his chair listening...

6 months later I complained to him of muscle weakness and suggested it was the statin. He told me I was nuts.

12 months later he puzzled over why my CK levels were sky high...

18 months later they took that statin off of the market because it had killed 58 people from rhabdomyolysis.

But, at the same time, I am (still) taking a statin today -- and without any adverse side effects that I am aware of...

... I don't think we have ANY one source of reliable, dependable medical information.

Talked to my Doctor about this issue....... his response is that the low amount of natural lovastatin is not the same as the synthesized stuff....

Coincidentally, I just ran into a friend who was put on statins about 6 months ago, and he told me he is now having problems opening water bottles, and such.... I advised him to call his Doctor immediately, before it gets worse.

Many of the issues that are reported here are side effects, rare side effects, linked to statins. One should at least read the flyer that comes with any medication and pay attention to any changes that might occur. With any drug/treatment, there are risks and those who may not react well or even may react badly. Nothing is 100% safe.

Fixed that for you...

... And, I would add: with every medication, it is a balancing act between the benefit and the harm. I saw that particularly with the people I worked with who had severe mental illnesses. The effects of taking the medications were, in a word, horrible. But, the effects of NOT taking the medications were worse!

And, the Italian Head Slap award goes to our FDA who claim that they insure that every medication is "Safe and Effective".

do they insure or ensure? not trying to be a spelling police - but it does have a different meaning depending on which one. probably "ensure" .
yea, i trust the fda and any other govt agency that "ensures" my safety about as much as I trust ... uhh, ... a government agency (which is very little).

i stopped taking statin about a year ago. i may drop dead any minute but i feel good and my triglycerides are way in the safe zone. cholesterol is a bit high though. depending on what / where you read, there is some conflicting information on the negative impact of "high" cholesterol, depending on how high it is. kind of a coincidence the acceptable level of cholesterol keeps going down over the years. surely it has nothing to do with drug companies trying to sell more drugs. drugs are our friend.
if i do drop dead i want to be the healthiest dead person in the neighborhood.
gw

No, there is no golden cut off point where you are going to die if your LDL is above that specific number. Like blood pressure, it is a range of good to concerning to bad to OMG...

And, you are right, the numbers have changed. A few years ago the LDL target was 130. Now it's 100 - unless you have diabetes then it's 70. And, yes, medical research is driven primarily by the drug companies. So it is unlikely the target would have come down without their influence. But I think more importantly is the belief that if "130 is good, 100 must be better". I don't know of any specific trials that prove 100 should be the target. It seemed to me to simply just be more of a consensus.

But, I think most good physicians would strongly agree with you that if you can get your numbers in range by diet and exercise, then by all means, flush the statin down the toilet.

The number of people just on this list alone who have reported symptoms would belie the claim that side-effects are "rare." But that's how marketing works, right?

Actually, it doesn't.

Well said.

How is it... heart attacks happen even with c numbers well under control??? Could it be.. the underlying genetic issue is NOT cholesterol counts but genetic factors that corporations to date can't make huge $$$ from?

NO one can prove.. even their ad disclaimers state: Statins do not prevent heart attacks. SO.. why poison one's self with them?

The good news tho is if you can tolerate Lipitor in its generic form the cost is way down. Like most drugs before it went generic the cost was obscene. My ins co paid like $700 for a 90 day supply. Yet the actual cost of the active ingredient was less than 5 cents per pill.

The pharma studies themselves show that actually side effects are not that rare. Some of what a person taking a statin would call a side effect were dismissed in the studies by calling them something to the effect of a co-effect. Common enough and intrinsic to the way they work to be an expected result. A cost of doing business as it were.

This is fine when the risks the meds addressed were very high and benefits easily demonstrated. Those patients were post blockage related heart attacks, NOT general public. Balance point changes when they are prescribed almost as a matter of course in general populations.


Actually if you read the studies, you'll find that they are definitely life saving to a small population (post blockage related heart attack survivors). Are shown to be a benefit to a larger population, those with truly elevated lipids and bad ratios and other risk factors.

However they have moved the treatment threshold lower and lower until people such as myself with cholesterol less then 130 and ratios decent but some particle size questions and slightly elevated BP are prescribed statins as though they had no other physical implications and were shown to have a positive effect on outcome. However, positive effects have not been shown except in first 2 populations, they are just presumed. But the physical cost is quite real, such as memory loss, strength declines, even in some studies IQ decline...


Your last line is very, very accurate. Look into how many people have to be treated for a reduction in heart attacks. Some age ranges and/or other risk factor catagories it is 20:1, others far higher...

SO for me: a 10% reduction in max lifts, a significant performance reduction riding bicycles (both observed with 2 months of starting statins), a high risk of memory and IQ loss ( I think for a living) translates to less than a 1% reduction in the risk of 1 type of heart attacks that accounts for some unknown (high fraction, I presume 3/4's) fraction which is only 1/2 of my mortality risk?

No thanks. I figure that just the impairment of my workouts induces far more risk than the statin could with all optimistic assumptions avoid. I can and do make lifestyle choices that significantly reduce my heart attack risk far more. Just cutting out simple high insulin response carbs has been shown to be far more effective then statins, both in improving lipid profiles and outcomes...

Now, your math will vary. You can evaluate the likelihood of statins warding off a heart problem or even reducing severity and make an informed decision yourself.

I have NO family history of this type of heart attack, nearly clear carotid arteries, rather low blood lipids and ratios only questionable when I actively lose weight. However, I have slightly elevated BP and history of both repeated head injuries and repeatedly exposed to electric shocks... Oh, and I sit in an office for long hours.



Over simplification. We are a very complex system. There are many "causes" both latent and precipitant, as there are many types of heart attacks.

The type of heart attacks we have made little progress in reducing mortality on, have a couple patterns: Early to mid 30', and again in the early to mid 40's first evidence of anything wrong is they drop dead... That is very likely genetic, and the only predictor (of last time I studied) was family history.

Others that are far more common and though there still are higher risk age bands are very responsive to lifestyle choices. These are the kinds that statins are meant to address.

Another latent cause are acquired traits, history of electrocutions particularly those that cross the chest and head injuries. These both can trigger immediate heart problems or lurk for years...


If you choose you can make informed decisions based upon your risk profile, not general population risk factors (of which 30% did not have regular health care until recently)... But you have to study, continuously update your ideas based upon ongoing research outcomes and implement changes necessary.

Or

You can rely on "appeal to authority", swallow the pills and not mitigate lifestyle factors...

I guess we now know that statins are so amazing, can bring zombie (threads) back to life!

I've tried two different statin drugs and both made me itch like crazy so I'm off them altogether. Additionally, I've done some reading on cholesterol and the picture is not nearly is clear cut as the medical community seems to think. May I recommend "Primal Body, Primal Mind" by Nora Gedgaudas, CNS, CNT.

I am in a similar, but more befuddling situation. I am 60. I have been n Lipitor for some time. No big eal I think. But I have recently had stents put in due to coronary artery disease (mostly hereditary). So now I am on statins, anti-clotting medicine, beta blockers, and blood pressure medicine. At first I hit a brick wall at 15 mi after the intervention ands medication. I stopped taking the blood pressure and beta blocker medicine in the morning ad took it at dinner. That helped a lot. That got me past the distance hurdle. But now I am at a speed hurdle. I had my beta blocker dose reduced to half, but it is still there. I wonder now if it is an interaction between all the drugs, including Lipitor, which I have been on for years. So the only medicine I have to take is the anti-clotting. I may experiment around with the blood pressure meds now.

After my post of yesterday morning, I went for my usual 30 mile ride. I is quite apparent that after 15 years of taking Lipitor I have no muscle problems at all. Yesterday was one of those days that we all experience that feels like you are strong enough you might be bending the crank arms. It is a good feeling for a guy almost 76!!!

Thirty years on statins and I've noticed no issues. Bad family history. Both parents died of heart attacks. Mother at 39. Father at 63. His first heart attack was when he was 43. I am nearly 60 with no heart attacks or evidence of heart disease beyond high blood pressure.

My sister did not like how statins made her feel. She quit taking them. She is an exerciser and has had fewer weight issues than I have had. She does not have high blood pressure and I have had it for many years. Though, it is controlled through drugs.

She had a heart attack at age 51 and thereafter double bypass surgery. Now she takes the statins.

Neither me nor my sister were able to change our cholesterol levels through diet. I have done a lot of experimenting and diet seems to have no effect, whether low fat or high fat or somewhere in between.

Since we are giving anecdotes, I thought I'd toss in a couple.

There's some decent double blinds coming out of Europe and the UK...

Much less conflict of interest or perverse incentives to distort the presentation of the results or to hide negative studies.

Beta's really improved my riding but I'm horribly out of shape... Had to go off them because they made me absolutely morose. Went back on several times due to troubles with other BP meds so several attempts same result.

Can you speak with a sports cardiologist to help?


Sorry about loosing your parents so early.

Glad you and your sister are well. I hope she's recovered fully.

Unfortunately, you both meet the criteria that strongly recommends statins and it is clear they are a magic life saver for people that do. Rarely is evidence stronger in the medical world. Both drug studies and epidemiological studies point this out.

This comment made me laugh out loud. I thought it was a reference to the Phillip K. Dick 1969 novel called Ubik, which was about a product, as near as I can remember, that was good for everything. Or maybe not. I need to re-read that one. Then I noticed the link to some actual product, which I find both humorous and disturbing. I looked at the linked page. I could not discern why the product is helpful.

Personally, I think the physician/pharmacology collaboration is a bigger scam than the military/industrial complex about which Eisenhower warned us. We have as a culture swallowed the idea that the solution to our problems lies at the bottom of a pill bottle. Maybe it does for some of us/you. I don't believe it. I think the last good legal drug invented was penicillin, and before that, aspirin. I take half an aspirin every day unless I have a headache, in which case I take a whole aspirin and drink some coffee. I eat lots of salt, but do not have high blood pressure. The prescriptions you folks have discussed here leave me scratching my head, which does not itch. A year or two ago, I had my testosterone level checked because the man on tv said it might be low. He was wrong. However, the PA at my family doctor suggested it was time (long overdue, he said) I have a full physical, colonoscopy, etc., and I refused. When I told him I categorically rejected all his treatments for whatever the test results might be, he seemed to be genuinely offended. I don't know about my cholesterol levels or PSA score. I don't care.

My hands go numb when I lean on them in the same position on the handlebars for 15-25 minutes. When that happens, I sit up and move that arm slowly in a circle, windmill style. Numbness goes away. Truth is, I haven't gotten a decent pair of padded riding gloves yet and the handlebar tape isn't very comfy. That will probably be my next upgrade.

Generally, I believe that the life is in the blood, and that exercise is the greatest life prolonging act I can do. If you are already on a lifetime prescription of something or other which you consider essential, then you may be right. I hope it works for you. Personally, I prefer not to travel that road. You may ask, "What about aspirin? Why do you take that?" (1) I have noticed that aspirin isn't generally prescribed except for the exorbitantly priced enteric coated low dose variety; I don't think you would be served an aspirin in any hospital in the country today and probably not for the last 40 years. It's too cheap; there is no money in it for the hospital or the pharmacy industry.
(2) My mom (before she passed on) suggested that it wouldn't hurt me to take half an aspirin a day, so I do. Besides, sometimes my girlfriend gives me a headache. I'm sure there are all kinds of arguments against aspirin these days. I simply don't believe them. Until recently, I am given to understand that something called coumadin was commonly prescribed as a blood thinner. The active ingredient in this is the same ingredient as in rat poison, and I have a philosophical objection to ingesting poison when a non-poisonous substance (aspirin) is readily available and does much the same thing.

I believe that in general, the effectiveness % of many of the drugs prescribed for folks these days is unacceptably low, but patients take them because they go to the doctor expecting a prescription. Side effects are rampant and people accept them, often getting another prescription to counter the side effects.

Your results and mileage may vary. Good luck to all with your own approach to health.
I may die from a heart attack or be run over by a truck this afternoon. If so, it is a good day to die. Meanwhile, I'm going riding.

Don't be so sure about conflicts and incentives. I think of the Swiss government report finding homeopathy works. Which is absolutely impossible (dilution of effective ingredients to nothing) and inconsistent with the results from high quality clinical trials. The Swiss analysis is frequently cited by the altmed crowd but is filled with flaws and clear bias.