Statins & Memory Loss

[Granbonny]

Glad to see this thread pop up again

Glad to see this thread pop up again

I received in the mail today my recent lipids test done 2 weeks ago by my PCP..First, I never fasted..he just asked me to have one done that day.. Letter from him..Total cholestrol was 204.. HDL 61...LDL 127..triglycerides..80.... Included in the letter was a script for 20mg. of Pravachol..and to come back in 6 weeks (fasting the night before)...He knows I am trying to lose weight and am exercing more..now that the weather is good....I will not have it filled.... I already had an appointment with him in 6 weeks..He gave me a script for Hyzaar...b/p meds..My b/p was 140/80..and the nurse took it and I asked him to take it and he said. Oh, I saw what it was..and flew out the door. Needless to say..he and I are going to have a little talk in 6 weeks..My INR has been in range for 2 years..and I am not about to start new meds unless they are necessary. I am taking the Hyzaar and can already feel tired from them.. He is a great PCP..just practice is getting bigger..and having less time to spend with patients....Bonnie

 

[SHerrin Hutt]

Crestor

Crestor

Well, I finally gave my Dr. a copy off the infor. on crestor and he told me to stop it right now. Thanks Ross, I hope this stops my leg pain that have be driving me crazy since I have been taking statins drug for years.

 

[hensylee]

Last May some of you may recall that I had a mass removed near my kidney. I walked INTO the hospital and could not walk OUT of the hospital. Seeing Susan W's post makes me wonder now if there is a connection to the statin and not an injury occuring in the OR. I have not walked again very well since last year when this occurred. I blamed it on the surgical team because as soon as I woke up, my daughter said I was complaining of hip pain. Went to doctor after doctor trying to find an answer and none could confirm any injury; i.e. out of place or fracture. Could it be the statin? I don't know. But if it IS the statin, I must have permanent damage by now? Oh, goodness, I hope not - and am still not taking the statin since about 3-4 wks ago.

 

[hensylee]

First, I never fasted..he just asked me to have one done that day..

Bonnie, you have to do it all over again. You HAVE to fast or all the numbers are wrong. Does the dr know you didn't fast? Don't take that medicine until your doctor has you do the test again.............

 

[Ross]

They should never have done the test at all if you did not fast. That is the very first thing they asked me when I went to have mine done. Have you had anything to eat or drink since Midnight?

 

[SHerrin Hutt]

Statin Drugs

Statin Drugs

Is there a test than can do to see if this is messing with you muscle control? If so what is it?

 

[hensylee]

yes, Sherrin - it's cpk but as we discussed above, it might not help us with our search for answers. Go back in this thread and read JimChicago's post (http://www.hunterdonhealthcare.org/...nked_Statin.asp)

 

[Christina]

The Dangers Of Statin Drugs.

The Dangers Of Statin Drugs.

As we have seen with HRT (Hormone Replacement Therapy) not too long ago, it's just a matter of time before doctors announce "SORRY, WE WERE WRONG ABOUT Cholesterol.
Please click on the following link.

http://www.mercola.com/2003/aug/13/statin_drugs.htm

 

[hensylee]

sorta like throwing darts, isn't it?

 

[bvdr]

Interesting article, Christina. I keep going back and forth about taking Lipitor. I am on it.......but only 10mg a day. My total cholesterol has never been elevated and my good cholesterol is excellent. But......I do have two vessels (Right Coronary Artery and lst diagonal branch) that have 50% blockages. I don't think my cholesterol has had anything to do with it but rather inflammatory processess that have occurred in other systems. My cardiologist thinks it may help prevent the blockages from getting worse. Who knows, he might be right. I'm just not totally convinced.

 

[Granbonny]

Betty

Betty

What is your totalcholestrol? Mine was 204..and I had not fasted the day they took. it. I don't think my PCP knew this. And he mailed me a script to take. Pravachol 20 mg.. I have another appointment May 13th and will fast and get him to take another test...I will not take anymore meds... : Bonnie

 

[bvdr]

Bonnie,

Total cholesterol 153
Triglycerides 111
HDL 62
VLDL Cholesterol 22
LDL Cholesterol 69
T.Chol/HDL ratio 2.5
LDL/HDH ratio 1.1

All in all it means I have a much lower than average risk to get cardiovascular disease. What do you think.....Lipitor or not?

Bonnie, I think your plan is a good one. If you need to take another medication it should be based on an accurate test.

 

[Granbonny]

My PCP

My PCP

Says in his letter. Total cholesterol less than 175..LDL less than 130 HDL greater than 40 Triglycerides less than 150..Other than the total..even without fasting..mine seems like in range..and Yours. more than perfect... My Cardio said my arteries were clean when I took the Cath before my VR. surgery.He also put me on B/p med.even tho it was just 140/80..Pretty good, I think for my age. 64 in June Over-weight..not walking during winter..and the nurse took it when I first walked in..White-coat b/p I love him dearly..but think..because I have had heart surgery..I should be on all meds. I bought a home b/p machine. Running now 120/69..but can already tell..with the b/p meds..I am sleepy... Bonnie

 

[tobagotwo]

Cardiologists generally seem enamored of their prescription offerings. While no one has come forth with any general statistics showing that we, as a nation, are having fewer cardiac events, thanks to Lipitor & friends, they seem to become ever more rabid in their approach. Recently, there have been articles saying that suggested cholesterol levels are far too loose, and that "treatment" should begin at much lower levels.

It simply beggars reality. These at best are indicators - percentage or even percent of percent actuarial results.

While I think that the miracle grain-free diet from one of those articles is no more than yet another wild grab for money and attention, it begins to have as much relevance as some of the malarkey that parts of the medical community are foisting on some of us mainstream.

While the benefits of cholesterol-lowering drugs are questionable, and sometimes statistically minute at best, they all have known side effects. And they all require that their dosage be raised at regular intervals to remain "effective." Eventually, you have to switch to a new drug, because the old one just doesn't work on you anymore. Almost all are hepatotoxic (damaging to the liver). FDA aside, I have to wonder whether anyone has proven that the potential good (and very hard to prove) done by some of these drugs actually outweighs the known negative effects.

There are some comparisons with blood pressure medications. Certainly, there is much proven validity to the claims that high blood pressure causes systemic damage over time, and I certainly wouldn't advocate stopping an HBP medication that is working for you. But one has to wonder why they keep starting and upping dosages of these drugs earlier and earlier, knowing they have a finite, useful life in each individual.

Much of the recent literature states plainly that C-reactive protien is a far better predictor of cardiac events than cholesterol. There are standard tests for it. I've had numerous blood tests recently, and all have included cholesteral tests. None have ever included C-reactive protien, even though it's just a check-off on the form. Why? I suspect it's because they don't yet have a "treatment" for it. No treatment, no godlike stature, no testing clinic income, no new way to control their patient audience, nothing new to force compliance, no blockbuster drug income, all = no interest.

Of course, they're not all manipulative (fill-in-the-blank)s, but I think that those who are sometimes drag many of the rest in with their strong statements and by backing each other up for their self-interest. If people can be made to believe it, it is real. Marketing exists at very active levels within the medical community, even when not driven by drug companies.

An example is one of the doctors in my cardio group. At the hospital, he told me that "we have to get you onto a super-low cholesterol diet right away." I had just had a cath done by his partner who had declared that my coronary arteries were "great, in fact fantastic." I asked the doctor why then he thought I needed to go on a highly restrictive diet. He said, "so they don't get blockages later."

He had completely lost sight of the fact that the diet isn't an end in and of itself - that you use it to forestall or treat a problem that his partner had absolutely proved I do not have. That's how heavy the marketing is in the doctor business.

 

[bvdr]

Several years ago, when Hurricane Floyd wrecked such havoc on the Carolinas with flooding, I was on a team that set up an Emergency Room in a school that rescue squads and local residents could use because the roads were inaccessable to the hospital. Local physicians donated medicine "samples" and we had an incredibly well stocked center. We had many greatful patients.

I know my PCP tries to give his patients medicine from his supplies whenever he can. I've seen many poor and elderly patients leave his office with paper bags filled with medications that they might not have otherwise been able to obtain. Marketing does play a real role but there is a plus side too.

 

[Marge]

Re statins and memory loss:

There are also, apparently, other studies that indicate that there is a link between cholesterol and Alzheimers, and that statins may help protect against Alzheimers. Any findings are, of course, very very preliminary.

<< In the past few years, researchers have found evidence suggesting that statins, drugs taken by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol levels, may also protect against Alzheimer's.

[...]

The first hints emerged about a decade ago, when Alzheimer's researchers noticed a link between apo E, a protein that carries cholesterol in the blood, and the disease. Everyone inherits one of three versions of apo E. But people with the variant called apo E4 had an increased risk of Alzheimer's, the researchers found. [...] In study after study, apo E4 predisposed people to Alzheimer's.

Then, a few years ago, Dr. Benjamin Wolozin, a professor of pharmacology at the Loyola University Medical School in Maywood, Ill., got what he thought was a brilliant idea. He was doing laboratory experiments, following up on a report that cholesterol changed the way beta amyloid, a protein thought to be the main contributor to plaque in the brains of Alzheimer's patients, was processed.

It was pure laboratory research.

"From a medical standpoint, it was irrelevant," he said.

Then Dr. Wolozin realized that a similar experiment was already under way. Millions of people were taking statins, which lowered cholesterol levels. Were they also less likely to develop Alzheimer's?

Excited, Dr. Wolozin examined the records of 56,790 patients at three hospitals. The results exceeded his wildest hopes. Those who were taking statins had a 70 percent reduction in the prevalence of Alzheimer's.

Two journals rejected his paper, saying that he needed to learn statistics and that his results had to be a fluke. But he had a feeling that they were correct. He submitted the paper to The Archives of Neurology, which published it in 2000.

A few months later, Dr. Hershel Jick of the Boston University School of Medicine and his colleagues reported in The Lancet that they had compared 284 patients with Alzheimer's to 1,080 people with no dementia. In the patients who had taken statins, the scientists found, the risk of Alzheimer's was reduced by 70 percent.

Two other groups reproduced the observations. Other researchers found that statins protected genetically engineered mice that normally developed brain changes like those found in Alzheimer's.

The next step was to give statins to Alzheimer's patients and see whether the drugs affected the course of the disease.

But, Dr. Wolozin said, "the typical Alzheimer's thing happened ? the data were mixed."

Despite the ambiguous findings, cholesterol does appear to be related to Alzheimer's, experts say. Several genes involved with cholesterol in addition to apo E4 also appear to affect the risk for Alzheimer's. Cholesterol, in fact, is so important to the brain, where it is used in nerve cell membranes, that the organ makes its own cholesterol independent of the liver, which produces the substance for the rest of the body.>>

The complete article is at http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/health/13PREV.html?pagewanted=1

 

[tobagotwo]

There has also been astudy that indicates that using statins can raise the length of the useful life of tissue replacement valves.

There is also an idiot who shows up every week on TV, who claims to be a doctor, and who claims to have "validated scientific studies" that prove conclusively that crushed coral, due to its natural, 3:2 blend of calcium and magnesium, will cure or prevent every disease known to man - including cancer. Somehow, they can't force this bloodsucking monkey off the TV, although it's patently obvious that he's a lying, greedy...well, you get the idea.

I put this idiot right up there with the people who try to convince an audience that meat they ate fifteen years ago is still lying, partially digested in their gut. (Absolutely ludicrous and unsupported - you'd have died years ago from it - yet, somehow it still keeps selling to new audiences.)

There's a lot of money in getting studies to show a new use for an already developed drug. The owning company gets rights on that indication for years, before generics are allowed to sell for that purpose. It's millions, sometimes billions of dollars.

It seems apparent that the statins and cholesteral are on their way out, and C-reactive protien, APO E4, and possibly Lp(a) are on their way in. Now they have to find new, "breakthough" uses for their old statin drugs while they tool up for the next wave of chemicals. Otherwise, they'll stop making money on those drugs before they start making money on the new ones, that have yet to be approved. This would affect their stock values.

I'm not saying that these results are lies. However, I am saying that the press from them rarely tells anything like the whole story, or the real circumstances around the study. If there were a compund out there that actually reduced the incidence of Alzheimer's by 50% - and it were supportable - it would not languish unnoticed in medical archives. There are companies - big companies - desperately searching to buy such research, because billions of dollars can be made from it.

The notion that these studies are routinely overlooked is a direct marketing tool (and urban legend) foisted by the coral and high-colonic hucksters from Saturday morning TV.

Certainly, because it is the best accepted advice we have now, if you take a Lipitor or any of the other cholesteral drugs because of very high cholesteral, you should probably continue it unless you have reason to believe it is harming you.

However, if I were someone with an issue like Betty, where my cholesteral appeared OK, I would want to be tested for C-reactive protien and other possible known causes for CAD. We're still just beginning to understand these processes. I would want to know if there might be a more appropriate chemical approach to my issue, knowing that there may not yet be one.

Whatever the outcome, I would want to know why the doctor believes that the use of cholesteral-lowering drugs will benefit me, even when my cholesteral is in the good range. Or is it just the only drug treatment he has at his easy disposal (one size fits all)?

The road to Hades is paved with the words: "...just to be sure."

 

[Susan BAV]

Don't hold back, Bob; how do you really feel about those blood-sucking parasites?!?!

~Susan W

 

[tobagotwo]

Heh-heh... Did I go a little over the top, there?

 

[ccrawford]

The 4/8/04 issue of the Wall St. Journal has an article about Pfizer's new drug called torcetrapib (where do they get these names) Anyhoo, the new drug is supposed to increase the level of HDL (good cholesterol). Good news huh, and they're gonna spend about 800 million to push this. Oops - sorry. Those of you who can't take Lipitor for various reasons (It makes my legs cramp) can't benefit - because they plan to combine the new drug with Lipitor. Now this couldn't be a ploy to extend the patent protection on Lipitor could it ? Surely not. Surely they would consider the welfare of their patients before the earnings per share - Wouldn't they ???