Posted on 10/12/2007 8:08:03 AM PDT by crazyshrink
Statins are known to be good for lowering cholesterol and maybe even fighting dementia, and now they have another reported benefit: they appear to slow decline in lung function in the elderly— even in those who smoke. According to researchers in Boston, it may be statins’ anti-inflammatory and antioxidant properties that help achieve this effect.
To determine whether smoking status modified that effect, the researchers also divided their subjects into four smoking groups: never-smokers, long-ago quitters, recent quitters and current smokers. “Within each smoking group, those not taking statins were estimated to experience faster declines in FEV1 and FVC than those taking statins,” wrote Dr. Schwartz, noting that the size of the effect varied a bit with smoking status.
(Excerpt) Read more at eurekalert.org ...
I think many patients don’t realize their newly discovered muscular pain and weakness are a result of the statins. Many accept it as “getting older”. We had a roundtable meeting and almost every single partipant had experienced the same thing as myself, and were told that it wasn’t related. Yet, when they stopped taking the statin drugs, the pain and weakness ended. Go figure. I think the drug manufacturers are bribing doctors to push the statins.
I am up to the highest single-tablet dosage of simvastatin, have been for a year, and still no problems. Noticed that some other countries have an even higher dosage, double, but not sure if I would push my luck with that.
Getting a little nervous about some of the generics, though: Interesting MSNBC article on generic antidepressants and differences in efficacy thereof vis-a-vis brand name.
I am not suggesting people shouldn’t use statins that obviously have issues they can’t resolve. However Statins are known to harm the liver, and how can they not over long term? Think about it, they are intentionally interfering with your liver’s normal function, that’s what they do.
Doctors have decided cholestorol is bad, so the biggest creator of cholestorol in the body is the liver, some peoples liver create more than others due to genetics.
Statins are naturally occurring drugs, you can get them from a variety of foods if you like as well. I know someone who dropped their numbers significantly by using flax seed oil.
They are however drugs, and in most pills synthetic versions of natural chemicals, which opens a whole other can of worms.
I’m not saying that people shouldn’t use statins that obviously need it and have tried everything else.. I am saying though, a lot of people I suspect are doing some long term damage to their livers without knowing it, because they aren’t willing to do the right things to begin with. Popping a pills a hell of a lot easier than changing ones lifestyle. Long term impact to the body however is not fully known.
You have doctors putting people on statins in their 30s... they have no way of knowing what effect that is going to have on their bodies over 20+ years.
OK, thanks. And my apologies to all.
Was that the ONLY drug you used during that time period? What, if any, side effects did you, or your doctor, notice?
Thanks
It was the only cholesterol drug. I have taken drugs for hypertension and arthritis for years. Since those drugs have not changed over time and my diet didn’t change over time, the Simvistatin was the only thing I was doing differently. I have not had any side effects. In fact my Dr. today noted that my Liver enzymes had actually decreased and were, infact, right at the bottom of the normal range. I will be checked again in another 3 months.
I believe the thinking is that there is no change that is not reversible, as long as the enzymes don't become elevated.
Statins have been around for 20 years and are increadibly well studied. Liver problems happen in about 1/2 of 1%—a number that is matched by the placebo control group.
Flaxseed oil is as much of a drug as simvistatin—it just hasn’t been studied for safety and effect. I’m always amused by folks that will pop an untested herb or vitamin supplement, but reject a drug that has been scientifically demonstrated to be beneficial.
Congratulations!
Thanks. I appreciate the reply.
“The statin drug manufacturers would like us all to believe that their
product needs to be put into our drinking water.”
I’m all for use of helpful pharmaceuticals.
But I have noticed that every couple of months another benefit of
statins gets in the mainstream press.
I’ve gotten the same impression: they are being almost promoted as
a panacea.
There are pleanyt of natural statins, I never said it wasn’t... you seemed to miss a key point. Artificial Statins vs Natural Statins. Artificial Statins have been around for about 20 years, and no they aren’t well studied long term. Natural Statins have been around for well... a hell of a lot longer.
There has only been 1 long term study that I know of on Statins, and it is a 15 year study that just got published this month. So, your claims to knowledge of long term effects is misinformed, and it did not remotely focus on liver or other health problems, just on Cholestorol levels and death.
So, you might want to do a bit more research before you start regurgitating the marketing lines of drug companies.
But should they withhold these benefits? That wouldn't be right, shirley. Whoops, didn't mean to call you names.
I am happy to hear about new benefits, even if they are tentative.
“But should they withhold these benefits?”
Of course not.
I’ve got enough Evil “Big Pharma” and biotech stocks, so I’m not
a luddite.
It’s just that the MSM which usually revels in the negatives of
“Big Pharma” sure seems happy to promote statins.
But then, I suppose more than a few of our “unbiased” journalists
probably have some Big Pharma in their 401(k) accounts!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.