Following the debacle of my medical exam at the end of last year, I now find that I am in the risk group that NICE wants to target using statins.
NICE is now suggesting that people with as low as a one-in-10 risk should be offered statins.
This could include someone who is in their 40s and otherwise fit and healthy, but has high cholesterol, as well as practically anyone over the age of 65 since age is a big risk factor.
Some doctors say targeting these people is misguided and will ultimately do more harm than good.
I’m with the “some doctors” on this one. If there is a specific need to prescribe for a patient following a specific consultation and relevant medical examination, then fine. But to prescribe them because you fall into a group that “may” have a risk factor is not okay. I will not be taking statins “just in case” because I am not prepared to take medicines that I do not need. And I do not need statins.
Common side effects, affecting between one in 10 and one in 100 people, include headache, nausea and insomnia.
For between one in 100 and one in 1,000 people they can cause inflammation of the liver, blurred vision and weakness.
Severe side effects such as memory problems, jaundice and damage to nerves and muscles are rare, affecting fewer than one in 1,000 people.
Oh, great, NICE wants to poison us with this stuff, just in case we get a heart attack. I’ll risk the heart attack, thanks very much.
Each person will need to weigh these risks against any potential gains, and some may decide that it’s not worth taking statins preventatively.
I have and it isn’t.
Despite the blithe assurances of the pro-statins lobby, even the common side-effects have a major impact on quality of life – not to mention masking the symptoms of serious disease.
Meanwhile, with the appearance of new versions of the drugs, the list of possible side-effects is likely to get longer: according to a recent study, Atorvastatin was linked to one extra case of diabetes for every 160 patients treated.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-22636666
I admire your restraint; under the circumstances, my response would be far less polite.
They prescribed me blood pressure tablet. the side effects of those were debilitating. I lasted two days before giving up on them.
Dr John Briffa has a good blog about the use of statins.
http://www.drbriffa.com/category/cholesterol-and-statins/
He does not seem to be in favour of the way they are being prescribed.
O.K. I have had two minor strokes in the last five years.
So I have simvastatin. Whether it make a difference, I don’t know. That is up to blood tetsts, and it looks good (fingers crossed.)
The Doctor then thought it would be a good idea to put me on … “Atorvastatin”
Fuck me in a small room with barbed wire and 16 walrusses!
NEVER again!
I could hardly walk 50 meters without feeling like I had run a marathon. Steps? anything over 10 and FORGET it. Chest pains, memor …. something, Attention defficiency, etc. What was I on about again???
So, I threw them in the bin, and saw my quackdoctor.
He put me back on Simva, and the problems were away in less than a week.
Now, I think of my Auntie, for example, (85 years old) who believes every word the doctor says, and would never THINK of questioning that.
I am seriosly convinced, that had I continued, the bastards would have killed me. WHAT that would do to, my Auntie, for example….
Horses for courses. My Wife takes Atorvastatin WITHOUT problems!
Just keep a VERY tight eye on the side effects, hich can be, as I say, in my opinion, deadly.
Let’s not forget the NHS is supposedly in crisis financially (yeah… right… on £108bn a year…) so why are these cretins trying to find new ways to piss money up the wall we don’t have?