900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous

[fawn]

A new paper cites nearly 900 studies on the adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, also called statins, which are a class of drugs widely used to treat high cholesterol. The review provides the most complete picture to date of reported side effects of statins.

Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and pain or numbness in the extremities are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur as side effects.

The paper summarizes powerful evidence that statin-induced injury to the function of the body's energy-producing cells, called mitochondria, underlies many of the adverse effects that occur to patients taking statin drugs. Statins lower levels of coenzyme Q10, a compound central to the processes of making energy within mitochondria and eliminating dangerous compounds called free radicals.

Higher statin doses and more powerful statins are linked to greater risk of developing side effects.

First comprehensive paper on statins' adverse effects released
Provides evidence for reported side effects including muscle and cognitive problems
A paper co-authored by Beatrice Golomb, MD, PhD, associate professor of medicine at the University of California, San Diego School of Medicine and director of UC San Diego's Statin Study group cites nearly 900 studies on the adverse effects of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins), a class of drugs widely used to treat high cholesterol.

The result is a review paper, currently published in the on-line edition of American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs, that provides the most complete picture to date of reported side effects of statins, showing the state of evidence for each. The paper also helps explain why certain individuals have an increased risk for such adverse effects.

"Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects," said Golomb. "But cognitive problems and peripheral neuropathy, or pain or numbness in the extremities like fingers and toes, are also widely reported." A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur as side effects from statins.

The paper cites clear evidence that higher statin doses or more powerful statins – those with a stronger ability to lower cholesterol – as well as certain genetic conditions, are linked to greater risk of developing side effects.

"Physician awareness of such side effects is reportedly low," Golomb said. "Being vigilant for adverse effects in their patients is necessary in order for doctors to provide informed treatment decisions and improved patient care."

The paper also summarizes powerful evidence that statin-induced injury to the function of the body's energy-producing cells, called mitochondria, underlies many of the adverse effects that occur to patients taking statin drugs.

Mitochondria produce most of the oxygen free radicals in the body, harmful compounds that "antioxidants" seek to protect against. When mitochondrial function is impaired, the body produces less energy and more "free radicals" are produced. Coenzyme Q10 ("Q10") is a compound central to the process of making energy within mitochondria and quenching free radicals. However, statins lower Q10 levels because they work by blocking the pathway involved in cholesterol production – the same pathway by which Q10 is produced. Statins also reduce the blood cholesterol that transports Q10 and other fat-soluble antioxidants.

"The loss of Q10 leads to loss of cell energy and increased free radicals which, in turn, can further damage mitochondrial DNA," said Golomb, who explained that loss of Q10 may lead to a greater likelihood of symptoms arising from statins in patients with existing mitochondrial damage – since these people especially rely on ample Q10 to help bypass this damage. Because statins may cause more mitochondrial problems over time – and as these energy powerhouses tend to weaken with age—new adverse effects can also develop the longer a patient takes statin drugs.

"The risk of adverse effects goes up as age goes up, and this helps explain why," said Golomb. "This also helps explain why statins' benefits have not been found to exceed their risks in those over 70 or 75 years old, even those with heart disease." High blood pressure and diabetes are linked to higher rates of mitochondrial problems, so these conditions are also clearly linked to a higher risk of statin complications, according to Golomb and co-author Marcella A. Evans, of UC San Diego and UC Irvine Schools of Medicine.

The connection between statins' antioxidant properties and mitochondrial risk helps explain a complicated finding that statins can protect against the very same problems, in some people, to which they may predispose others – problems such as muscle and kidney function or heart arrhythmia.

[Tammy2002]

Thanks for posting this Fawn.

[mephy]

I believe that statins contributed to my father's decline before he passed away. I won't bore anyone with too many details... I just hate them.

[fawn]

3 out of 5 people I encounter these days are on some form of cholesterol lowering medication. A 47 yo gentleman I met the other day....strong, in shape works out, healthy, natural eaters and he's on a statin becuase his smoking, beer drinking junk food eating brother and father both had heart attacks before they were 50. His Dr. has him convinced he needs them. I have a client who at 79 his Doc has him on one for a total reading of 210 and now, he's losing his memory.

[Goldenrod]

This just breaks my heart. I don't remember the specific sources at the moment, but I've read in more than one place that the medical "experts" have made the ranges for "normal/healthy" cholesterol artificially low so that they could prescribe more drugs. *Sigh.* In other words, let's say it used to be that anything under 215 total was okay. Now it's 200. Pretty soon they're going to lower it to such a point that no healthy human would fit the profile, and they'll want us all to be on medication. (Never mind the fact that the meds don't even work...)

In GCBC and other books I've read, several studies were cited in which people with the *lowest* cholesterol levels had the highest mortality rates from several causes, not just heart-related illnesses. I keep meaning to check out the thincs website (Int'l Network of Cholesterol Skeptics) for even more hard science on this, but I have so much else to read!!

[sugarless4life]

Great post, Fawn!!

This is ESSENTIAL information and people need to be INFORMED before they take these drugs. Big Pharma would have everybody taking them if they could !!!

BE YOUR OWN HEALTH ADVOCATE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And IMO, EVERYBODY should be taking CoQ10!!!

Betty

[belfrybat]

Good information. Do you have the link to this study? I am "fighting" my doc about going on statins and would like to reference it. Thanks!

[BrianSCohen]

Originally Posted by belfrybat

Good information. Do you have the link to this study? I am "fighting" my doc about going on statins and would like to reference it. Thanks!

This is an interested study. This is absolutely the type of study that you need in your hand when you discuss these issues with your doctor. You need a prescription to get the original article, but you can get the abstract for free American Journal of Cardiovascular Drugs - Abstract: Volume 8(6) 2008 p 373-418 Statin Adverse Effects: A Review of the Literature and Evidence for a Mitochondrial Mechanism.

Thanks for posting this fawn.

[NutinHonie]

Originally Posted by fawn

3 out of 5 people I encounter these days are on some form of cholesterol lowering medication. A 47 yo gentleman I met the other day....strong, in shape works out, healthy, natural eaters and he's on a statin becuase his smoking, beer drinking junk food eating brother and father both had heart attacks before they were 50. His Dr. has him convinced he needs them. I have a client who at 79 his Doc has him on one for a total reading of 210 and now, he's losing his memory.

This make me so

My brother takes them as well. And he is convinced he NEEDS them.

[Doug_H]

Thanks Fawn.
DW and I have long resisted taking statins even though our Doctor was pushing them. We now control our lipids through diet.

Doug

[NutinHonie]

Fawn, do you have a link to the article?

[fawn]

First comprehensive paper on statins' adverse effects released

Here is the link!

[maizenbluebabe]

Think of all the endless millions who are on statins--and growing. We constantly hear of the increase in Alzheimers disease. I have to wonder if there is a direct connection between this--or other big Pharm produced poisons--and the increase in cognitive problems of the elderly or the not-so-elderly.

Now just look ahead another 10 years or so to all those now on statins and this will be a nation of people with serious memory problems . I wonder how much longer the struggling US Health Care System can survive the obesity related problems of the ADA and AHA dietary recommendations added to the statin-induced ones which will soon be roaring down the track at warp speed?

No one will have to attack with bombs or soldiers to conquer us--Big Pharm is taking care of that very nicely already.

[Stevie Renee]

Thanks Fawn.

[Tammy2002]

Originally Posted by Goldenrod

This just breaks my heart. I don't remember the specific sources at the moment, but I've read in more than one place that the medical "experts" have made the ranges for "normal/healthy" cholesterol artificially low so that they could prescribe more drugs. *Sigh.* In other words, let's say it used to be that anything under 215 total was okay. Now it's 200. Pretty soon they're going to lower it to such a point that no healthy human would fit the profile, and they'll want us all to be on medication. (Never mind the fact that the meds don't even work...)

excellent book called "Selling sickness"... talks about this very thing.

[Goldenrod]

Originally Posted by maizenbluebabe

[COLOR="Red"] I wonder how much longer the struggling US Health Care System can survive the obesity related problems of the ADA and AHA dietary recommendations added to the statin-induced ones which will soon be roaring down the track at warp speed?[/COLOR]

No one will have to attack with bombs or soldiers to conquer us--Big Pharm is taking care of that very nicely already.

THANK YOU!!
I've been saying this for a while -- why are we so worried about terrorism? We are killing OURSELVES just fine without any help. If I were someone with an axe to grind against the United States, I would simply sit back and watch what's happening here now--how we're destroying our entire economy and OUR LIVES--and laugh my butt off.

Also...I posted this elsewhere, but no one replied. Lemme see if anyone agrees here:

I don't want to start a big thread about politics, but I watched the president's speech the other night, and I've also been hearing a lot on the radio (news programs) about how out of control healthcare costs are. What I want to know is, why are none of our elected officials asking WHY healthcare costs are ballooning so insanely.

How come no one's ever stood up and asked WHY so many Americans are on so much medication? And WHY everyone seems to be so sick? Or WHY we are the most technologically advanced civilization, with billions and billions being pumped into new technologies, early detection. state-of-the-art treatments, yet we STILL do not have cures for our most debilitating and fatal illnesses. Billions being spent both in taxpayer funds and private donations to research universities, organizations like the AMA, the Amer. Heart Association, Amer. Diabetes Association, etc.

Why is no one sounding the alarm?

The taxpayer aspect of things never bothered me until I really started thinking about it. Everyone's tax money is being used to subsidize prescription drugs and other treatments for millions of people, and it's only going to get worse as the baby boomers age (and presumably get prescribed more meds). I'm not a raving lunatic...I'm not claiming that *every* illness is caused by what we eat, but I think it would be difficult to deny that our diet and lifestyle habits play a dramatic role. And NO ONE in a position of government authority is asking us to take responsibility for our own health. NO ONE is asking us to help keep costs down by doing our best to keep from getting sick in the first place.

I really, really hope it's not all about the money, with all the congressmen and senators Big Food and Big Pharma's pockets. If it is, I honestly don't know what to make of this country anymore.

I guess we could argue that people at the FDA and USDA *are* trying to advice us about nutrition...it's just too bad they're giving us a lot of incorrect advice. Pres. Obama mentioned preventive care tonight, but preventive care (tests, scans, etc.) can only do so much when the people who are supposed to be our authorities on health tell us to limit eggs, limit sun exposure, and so on.

Or maybe *they're* bought and paid for, too. (Wouldn't surprise me -- a lot of high-level legislators and regulators at these agencies eventually wind up working for the very corporations they were supposed to be watchdogging -- usually at a substantial pay increase from their federal salary.)

[maizenbluebabe]

Originally Posted by Goldenrod

THANK YOU!!
I've been saying this for a while -- why are we so worried about terrorism? We are killing OURSELVES just fine without any help. If I were someone with an axe to grind against the United States, I would simply sit back and watch what's happening here now--how we're destroying our entire economy and OUR LIVES--and laugh my butt off.

Also...I posted this elsewhere, but no one replied. Lemme see if anyone agrees here:

I don't want to start a big thread about politics, but I watched the president's speech the other night, and I've also been hearing a lot on the radio (news programs) about how out of control healthcare costs are. What I want to know is, why are none of our elected officials asking WHY healthcare costs are ballooning so insanely.

How come no one's ever stood up and asked WHY so many Americans are on so much medication? And WHY everyone seems to be so sick? Or WHY we are the most technologically advanced civilization, with billions and billions being pumped into new technologies, early detection. state-of-the-art treatments, yet we STILL do not have cures for our most debilitating and fatal illnesses. Billions being spent both in taxpayer funds and private donations to research universities, organizations like the AMA, the Amer. Heart Association, Amer. Diabetes Association, etc.

Why is no one sounding the alarm?

The taxpayer aspect of things never bothered me until I really started thinking about it. Everyone's tax money is being used to subsidize prescription drugs and other treatments for millions of people, and it's only going to get worse as the baby boomers age (and presumably get prescribed more meds). I'm not a raving lunatic...I'm not claiming that *every* illness is caused by what we eat, but I think it would be difficult to deny that our diet and lifestyle habits play a dramatic role. And NO ONE in a position of government authority is asking us to take responsibility for our own health. NO ONE is asking us to help keep costs down by doing our best to keep from getting sick in the first place.

I really, really hope it's not all about the money, with all the congressmen and senators Big Food and Big Pharma's pockets. If it is, I honestly don't know what to make of this country anymore.

I guess we could argue that people at the FDA and USDA *are* trying to advice us about nutrition...it's just too bad they're giving us a lot of incorrect advice. Pres. Obama mentioned preventive care tonight, but preventive care (tests, scans, etc.) can only do so much when the people who are supposed to be our authorities on health tell us to limit eggs, limit sun exposure, and so on.

Or maybe *they're* bought and paid for, too. (Wouldn't surprise me -- a lot of high-level legislators and regulators at these agencies eventually wind up working for the very corporations they were supposed to be watchdogging -- usually at a substantial pay increase from their federal salary.)

Goldenrod, I am having the same thoughts these days and I bet any number of peeps at LCF share this opinion! I dont think your concern is AT ALL "anti " a certain party or elected official. This is something that needs saying. And I often wonder why the hell people like us who CHOOSE to eat healthy and avoid meds DONT HAVE A LOBBY OF THEIR OWN? And of course, the answer is simple--and sad: THERE IS NO MONEY TO BE MADE FROM US OR THIS WOE/WOL!

[maizenbluebabe]

For the little satisfaction to be found in this: It may sadly come to pass that WE WILL BE THE LAST ONES STANDING amid the ruins of our economy, our health system, and our society if something drastic is not done to halt the obesity epidemic.

Please do not misunderstand the following fantasy statement: maybe there will come "an Ayn Rand nutritional moment" when our population will consist only of those choosing to eat wisely and they can start building a new society based on the concepts of genuine nourishment for the human race. :

[Goldenrod]

Originally Posted by maizenbluebabe

Goldenrod, I am having the same thoughts these days and I bet any number of peeps at LCF share this opinion! I dont think your concern is AT ALL "anti " a certain party or elected official. This is something that needs saying. And I often wonder why the hell people like us who CHOOSE to eat healthy and avoid meds DONT HAVE A LOBBY OF THEIR OWN? And of course, the answer is simple--and sad: THERE IS NO MONEY TO BE MADE FROM US OR THIS WOE/WOL!

If you want a truly disturbing example of this, watch the movie Sweet Misery. (Available through Netflix, if you have it. I think it's even available for the instant viewing, so you can watch online and not even have to wait for it in the mail.) It's about aspartame. There is an extremely disturbing section about Donald Rumsfeld's tenure as the president of G.D. Searle, the company that invented aspartame, and how the FDA was poised to ban the substance until Pres. Reagan signed an executive order that basically stripped the FDA of regulatory power. They installed someone a little more sympathetic to their cause in the FDA, and it got approved very quickly thereafter. And then what? After about two years at the FDA, said person left to go work for ...drumroll please ... G.D. Searle. I am not making this up. I have no vested political interest whatsoever. Like they say, the truth is stranger (and a heckuva lot SCARIER) than fiction.

I really recommend it. It's only about 95 minutes. (Even if you have nothing against aspartame, it's still quite eye-opening about how things that are extremely questionable get approved.)

**ETA: I originally wrote the movie title as Sweet Poison. I remembered it wrong. The title is Sweet Misery.

[suzukigirl]

So 900 studies say that statins are harmful, how many actually truthfully, without cherry picking and figure massaging, say they are absolutely safe? No way am I in support of statins, but when this discussion comes up, which it will, OH will ask about the other side of the coin and I want to be armed.