Skip to content
Statins Not Linked to Memory Loss, Dementia
avatar
iride6606 posted:
Here's the latest findings, bottom line is there is NO connection between statins and memory/dementia/cognitive issues. These drugs have been falsely convicted by human error!


http://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=175269


http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/814576

http://www.firstwordpharma.com/node/1164309#axzz2nDtkslRJ
Reply
FirstPrevious12NextLast
 
avatar
bobby75703 responded:
Right. uh huh. The thousands upon thousands of patients complaining of memory loss while on statins were all wrong.

Those who have financial ties to statins, past or present, are quick to brush patient side effects under the rug, and quick to discredit the patient.

That's not medicine. That's called looking the other way to protect your own interests.

I think its a crime.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Compared to millions and millions of people not experiencing memory loss, uh huh, I think so. The facts are on the side of statins.


These drugs have been wrongfully convicted based on human error!


The evidence is clear, these drugs do not cause memory loss, they have been falsely convicted by those that would look the other way from science!


That's a crime alright.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

What I see when I look at statins is science being pushed aside in favor of appealing to the market.

I'm standing my ground. These drugs are a gimmick and 100% worthless.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Not opinion, science and we can't forget the fact that statins have been wrongfully convicted by the media!
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Statins are being convicted by the numerous people who have been injured by them.

As one person commented about 10 years ago. "Statins will collapse under their own fraud" And they were right.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Hogswallop,


The reputation of statins is not being driven by the very, very small minority of those that have possible side effects, that's not how he world works. The final say on statins will be written by the vast, vast majority of those that benefit from them.


Just as the legacy of any of our past Presidents is not written by the minority, it will be those in the majority that have benefitted by the greater good. Glass half full, not broken and spilled.


Whoever that "one person" is (we all know as it gets pointed out all the time) is committing human error and convicting statins wrongfully with nothing to back it up but a hunch.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
Lets go visit some graves, and you tell me if its just a hunch.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
Fiddlesticks,


That's a little morbid, but if we go let's look at the 660,000 graves of those who died of heart disease last year since cholesterol is a major risk factor.


Some people have no arguments, just guesses to back their position.
 
avatar
Anon_320 responded:
Iride6606 and bobby75703, I've been reading your posts for months. I don't even know why you persist. One of you is steadfastly on one side of this question, one on the other, and neither of you is going to budge.

I'm sure the truth about statins is somewhere in between the extreme positions you have each taken; they've undoubtedly helped some people, and they have undoubtedly hurt some, including me.

Iride6606, I'm not sure how you can continue to insist that statins are harmless. I'm one of the people who suffered greatly while I was on them, but you'll no doubt dismiss that as being all in my head. There is a HUGE amount of anecdotal evidence of the damage done by statins but you seem unwilling to even consider that there could be anything to it.

Bobby75703, there is also a great deal of evidence that statins have helped reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in certain populations. You can't just declare that there's nothing to that, either.

Sorry to interrupt yet another of your arguments about this. Back to your regularly-scheduled programming.
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to Anon_320's response:
I'm sure the truth about statins is somewhere in between the extreme positions you have each taken


Bingo the comment I've been waiting to hear from someone! That's the only point I'm trying to make, just a little balance.


I have never recommended anyone start a statin, that's the difference. I have always maintained that some people such as yourself will suffer, for that I am truly sorry. I have never said the side effects were just in someone's mind, I only look at the numbers and people like you will always get caught up in the numbers with the best of drugs.


However, it is one thing to post one's experience with the topic, it's another when people are being swayed against a treatment from a medical professional to a patient with hype and outlandish statements. I post fact as a counter to hype.


You are very wise. FYI, not really an argument, just trying to balance the hype.


So how did statins affect you? I am always interested in how some are affected by the side effects.
 
avatar
Anon_320 replied to iride6606's response:
Thank you for your kind response.

I developed severe pain in my legs, mostly in my thighs. It got so bad that my whole life was ruled by it: I avoided going out as much as possible, let work around the house slide, refused invitations, stopped traveling and tried to schedule all of my errands for one day to limit the number of trips I had to make.

The day after running even a couple of errands or spending an hour in the kitchen, I would feel as though I'd been run over by a truck. If I had to be on my feet for very long, I'd be in such pain that night that there were times I lay in bed and sobbed.

None of this showed up as a problem in my blood work.

I stopped statins about five years ago and still have some residual pain in my thighs, especially if on my feet a lot, but it's much, much better and I can pursue my normal activities. I would not go back on statins again for anything because it wasn't worth perhaps prolonging my life when I wasn't really living my life.
 
avatar
bobby75703 replied to Anon_320's response:
Anon_320, Thanks for joining in the discussion. Your participation is most appreciated.

I am sorry to hear about the physical pain you have had to endure from taking statins. Its one of the reasons why I post here. To bring about discussion and awareness.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I recognize I am in the minority believing statins have zero benefit, but I m not entirely alone, granted we are few. My reason for believing statins have no benefit in the real world in reducing heart disease is multi- factored.

Bullet point summary why:

* In the real world I find ZERO association between cholesterol levels and heart disease.

* The vast majority of studies showing the wonderful benefits of statins were sponsored by their makers. I do not accept this as valid science.

* Statins block the mevalonate pathway. I do not believe this pathway is responsible, or has anything to do with hardening of the arteries, heart attacks or strokes. It simply does not make physiological sense.

* Statins have had ZERO impact on the rate of decline in heart disease deaths in the United States. The rate of decline before and after statins remained unchanged.

* Statins have an absolute risk reduction of around 1%. Meaning 100 people have to take the drug to spare just 1 person a heart attack. That's only if a person accepts industry sponsored studies. I personally don't accept them. I believe the the 1% benefit was manufactured to meet market.

* Conflicts of interest. Remember the Golden Rule. "He who has gold makes the rules" Financial ties to big pharma run rampant, including the panel of "Experts" who wrote the cholesterol guidelines.

* I do not believe impeding function of the mevalonate pathway does anything to extend life. Again it does not make physiological sense.

Anon_320, My hope is that your health will improve and that you will experience full recovery. Thanks again for responding!

Bobby
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to Anon_320's response:
Anon,


As you can see, the argument goes on as some can't make a post and be done with it.


So in your case, how long were you on statins? Did the symptoms come on right away or get worse over time? Which statin were you on?


Something you said struck a nerve with me. I was on a drug called Topamax (look that one up if you want to see some nasty side effects) for a neurological condition and it has terrible side effects that made me stop taking it as well. What's interesting is that it was for the same reasons, it made me stop doing anything other than the bare minimum, working, eating recovering. I think that type of psychological side effect is the worse.


Get better!
 
avatar
iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
* I do not believe impeding function of the mevalonate pathway does anything to extend life. Again it does not make physiological sense.


* Statins block the mevalonate pathway. I do not believe this pathway is responsible, or has anything to do with hardening of the arteries, heart attacks or strokes. It simply does not make physiological sense.



Please explain how the mevalonate pathway works and is affected by statins. I have asked this every time it is brought up, can't get an answer.


* The vast majority of studies showing the wonderful benefits of statins were sponsored by their makers. I do not accept this as valid science.


Not true and all current meta analysis studies are staying away from and not accepting manufacturer funding. Even if you throw out all the studies with "suspect" funding due to source which proves nothing, there are many, many more that are privately funded and show the same results.



* Statins have had ZERO impact on the rate of decline in heart disease deaths in the United States. The rate of decline before and after statins remained unchanged.


As I have explained before, you can't apply a constant to a variable, it's not statistically correct. You would have to assume there was no change in risk due to changes in lifestyle or environment, you're looking at this wrong mathematically. The people that write the headlines don't do the math.


Again I know you don't like fancy formulas, but here is the principle you are overlooking;


Correlation Coefficient:


The correlation coefficient indicates the degree of linear relationship between two variables. The correlation coefficient always lies between -1 and 1. -1 indicates perfect linear negative relationship between two variables, 1 indicates perfect positive linear relationship and 0 indicates lack of any linear relationship.


Pearson's correlation coefficient when applied to a population is commonly represented by the Greek letter 3C1 (rho) and may be referred to as the population correlation coefficient or the population Pearson correlation coefficient. The formula for 3C1 is:
where, is the covariance, is the standard deviation of , is the mean of , and is the expectation.


There is so much more than looking at a linear expression of heart disease during the years and the introduction of statins, how can anyone think it is as simple as looking at a line and injecting a date?


* Statins have an absolute risk reduction of around 1%. Meaning 100 people have to take the drug to spare just 1 person a heart attack. That's only if a person accepts industry sponsored studies. I personally don't accept them. I believe the the 1% benefit was manufactured to meet market.


Another great example of cherry picking, I love it. Some here have stated they will not trust any data from a drug company sponsored studies, but will take a piece that supports their position, even on a number with a foot note as being wrong and is on only one trial.


In fact the NIH has cautioned researchers and medical professionals not to use the NNT from JUPITER, but the media has gone nuts with it and if you read headlines it makes great fodder. I have spoken to this enough, it is a wrong number not accepted by anyone but the anti-statin folks. The NIH doesn't recommend using them;


In particular it should not be used when it is not known whether the relative risk reduction associated with an intervention is constant for all levels of risk, or for periods of time longer than that studied in the original trials.


This represent the current NNT based on years of statin use;





Bottom line, NNT for individuals over 50 based on 10 year use is 4.


http://www.medicine.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/cardiac/statcalc.html



* Conflicts of interest. Remember the Golden Rule. "He who has gold makes the rules" Financial ties to big pharma run rampant, including the panel of "Experts" who wrote the cholesterol guidelines.


Great, show us.


One last time, as a PhD in Statistics, I need to see the numbers, not headlines or feelings.


Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Helpful Tips

Healthy Snack
In order to help my cholesterol numbers, I have switched to more cholesterol friendly snacks, such as raw almonds. More
Was this Helpful?
12 of 14 found this helpful

Helpful Resources

Be the first to post a Resource!

Related News

There was an error with this newsfeed

Related Drug Reviews

  • Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems With Your Medications to the FDA

FDAYou are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.