Statin madness
by Michael Eades
Please check his blog for his comments about the new dietary guidelines as well.
I’ve railed in numerous posts and to anyone who would stand and listen to me about the idiocy of prescribing statins to the vast majority of those they’re prescribed for. I read comments from female readers of this blog telling me how their doctors are insisting they go on statins despite there not being any evidence that statins provide any benefit to women. I hear about young men with no history of heart disease but minimally elevated cholesterol levels being put on a statin with the understanding that they need to be on this drug for life. This despite there not being any evidence that statins prolong the lives of those young men who take them.
Based on these examples and a thousand others, I’ve become
convinced that prescribing statins is a reflex action for many doctors. And I
have to shake my head because these are not benign drugs. In fact, they come
with a contingent of fairly serious side effects, many of which can last long
after the drugs have been discontinued.
After the age 50, the higher the cholesterol, the greater the
longevity. So, again, why would anyone write a prescription for a non-benign
drug to an elderly patient? Plus, the chance for rhabdomyolysis is greater in the elderly who take statins.
And not just any old statin. The script was for a large dose of
Lipitor, a fat-soluble statin. Fat soluble statins are much more likely to be
involved in drug interactions, and they can induce insulin resistance and
possibly cause diabetes. If you’re going to give an unnecessary drug, why
wouldn’t you at least give one with the fewest side effects?
There are six statins available right now. Four of them are fat
soluble and two are water soluble:
· Atorvastatin
(Lipitor)
· Fluvastatin
(Lescol)
· Lovastatin
(Mevacor)
· Simvastatin
(Zocor)
Water soluble statins
· Pravastatin
(Pravachol)
· Rosuvastatin
(Crestor)
If I had to take a statin or prescribe one, I would certainly
take or prescribe a water-soluble one. These drugs pretty much pass through the
kidneys unchanged, and since they don’t have to be metabolized in the liver,
there is less likelihood of serious liver problems, which are a problem with
the lipid soluble statins. And, as I mentioned above, the lipid-soluble statins
are more inclined to cause drug interactions, insulin resistance and probably
diabetes. Why use them at all?
Lipid (fat) soluble statins make their way into the cell
membranes, which are basically fats. But fats that are highly functional in
terms of their relationship to the cells they enclose. Anything absorbed into
fatty tissues is more difficult to get rid of than that absorbed into a
water-based part of the cell. Whenever I think of these drugs socked away in
the fat cells and cell membranes of the people who take them (unnecessarily), I
always remember the words of Dr. Ernest Curtis, cardiologist and author of The Cholesterol Delusion, a book I
highly recommend:
“As severe
as some of these short-term side effects can be, they pale into relative
insignificance when compared to the potential long-term problems. The chief
difficulty here is that no one knows what the long-term effects may be from
altering the basic biochemistry of the human body over a period of time.
Because cholesterol is the key element in the formation of cell membranes,
which are the protective coat for the cells, it may be that blocking
cholesterol’s production will weaken the protective barrier and allow the entry
of toxins or carcinogens that were previously excluded. There are disturbing
reports of increased cancer in some cholesterol-lowering studies, but, in fact,
this process may take many years to play out. It’s enough at this point to
acknowledge that the long-term effects are completely unknown. This is a risk
that should receive serious attention before half the population is placed on
these drugs, that, in effect, accomplish nothing more than low-dose aspirin or
an extra glass or two of water each day.”
Comments
Post a Comment