Hello, anyone. Would you kindly steer me to links here and elsewhere about the effectiveness and/or advisability of statin drugs?

DH just visited a new (young) doc who wrote him a prescription based on nothing more than, "Well, you're 70 years old." I think that's baloney. But I would like to have some evidence to back up that opinion.

Thanks.

This is Nancy LC's link:
https://www.diigo.com/list/iamzute/...erol-skepticism

And my favorite. Scroll down to the statin links on the right. Awesome site.
http://healthydietsandscience.blogspot.com/

Thanks for that link to David Evans..I forgot about him. Must add to my RSS feed..he is very good. barb, I added the Medscape report on new study about men and diabetes risk from statins in research forum.

Read back through recent threads in the cholesterol forum for a few more articles...they have been in mainstream press more lately. I also like the two part Catalyst show on heart disease and statins...you can still find it on YouTube. http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=48

More than balony, to treat with a powerful medication that has a long list of known side effects with no indication of a problem is malpractice (says me )

Me, too. When you're an old guy trying to find a new doc, you get kicked to the bottom. Luckily, DH is smart enough to listen to DW.

Thanks for all the input. I'll do some investigation.

Here's what some doctors have to say:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...e-maybe-anyone/

http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2014/10/say-statins/

There is a lot of press going on about this exact issue right now regarding statins greatly increasing risk for T2 diabetes...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...g-properly.html

Wow. Thanks everybody! I've been following these links and learning a lot. I'm trying to remember that there is also "evidence" (or at least a medical community) that suggests statins are helpful. But I'm ignoring them.

Meanwhile, DH took my original recommendation (something on the order of "Not only NO, but H$%& NO!") and hasn't thought another thing about it. But if he ever wants evidence, I got it!

I have never been able to understand how they can prove the effectiveness of a preventative medicine, unless its totally obvious. How can they tell that people wont have heart problems if they are take statins and how can they tell that those not taking statins might?? and for that matter, how can they tell that people wont get flu if they take the flu jab??? Maybe those people wouldnt have got flu anyway - I know that some of my colleagues who have the flu jab (we work in the health industry and its pretty much obligatory) still get flu....????

My brother in law is a big fan of statins and has been taking them for years. He had a heart attack last year and when I commented on the statins not helping, he just said that it could have been a fatal heart attack without them?????? Oh, and yes, he had to retire early shortly after starting statins as he became very forgetful and a bit crazy lol (a coincident???)

Jo xxx

Yes, prevention is a tricky thing. But I wouldn't extend the statin controversy to something like polio vaccine, the flu shot, or even the shingles injection. I got the shingles vaccine, and within two years--yup! got shingles. However, I barely recognized it as shingles, and I still choose to think that without the vaccine, I might have had an extended, painful, scarring case of the virus.

We're all persuaded by our beliefs and experiences, not to mention the influence of people we trust. I take a bunch of supplements recommended years ago by a doctor I liked. Are they working? How should I know? The fact that I'm in excellent health at an advanced age suggests that *something* is working. But it could be just dumb luck. (I take a little credit for healthy eating and exercise, of course.)

Western medicine fell in love with chemicals and machines. Some of that has done a great deal of good. And some of it? Well, not so much. You just have to get as educated as you can, and make the best choices you can. Same with the docs, many of whom are now catching up with the ancient wisdom of alternative, wholistic, or (as Dr. Atkins called it) complementary therapies.

Jo, as you've noticed, it can be difficult to watch loved ones get it "wrong."

I believe the good effects of statins come from their anti-inflammatory effects, not from their effects on cholesterol. I'm currently taking high dose niacin for its anti-inflammatory effects; similar to the kind of supplementation some people use as therapy for high cholesterol.

The difference is that niacin has no side effects; no known downsides. While statins have terrible, perhaps irreversible, side effects.

The difference is that niacin enables the Nitric Acid healing cycle; breaking bonds that stress and poor nutrition have locked into the cells and prevents healing hormones from doing their work.

With statins, the action comes from blocking the production of a vital substance in the body. The body can't produce inflammation, but it also is blocked from performing dozens of other life-giving processes.