Skip to content


    Exciting News for WebMD Members!

    We've been busy behind the scenes building new message boards for you. You'll have new and easier ways to find messages, connect with others, and share your stories.

    And, this will all be available on your smartphone or other mobile device!

    What Do You Need to Do?

    The message board you're used to will be closing in the coming weeks. While many of your boards will be making the move to our new home, your posts will not. Want to keep a discussion going? Save posts you want to continue (this includes your member profile story), so that you can re-post them in the new message boards.

    Keep an eye here and on your email inbox, we'll be back in touch soon to give you all the information you need!

    Yours in health,
    WebMD Message Boards Management

    Original Poster Follow-up Feb. 2014
    jrkirk posted:
    Original Poster here, with a follow-up on about 15-16 months post statin complete withdrawl, with an update on condition. Male patient age now 71-1/2 years.

    I continue to go to cardiac rehab 3X weekly, and have had no more muscle problems, nor have I had further cardiac problems. Total cholesterol numbers are in the 180-190 range, and total lipids are not in the recommended range. Good cholesterol is not high enough for current updated standards, but overall health continues to be overall good.

    This layman has these conclusions on statins. The drugs work very well to reduce total cholesterol numbers, and can also 'improve' all of the other popular relevant blood work measured numbers, but they do little or nothing to improve the most important outcomes, namely 1) Longevity, 2) Incidence of stroke, or 3) Incidence of heart attacks. They have been a spectactular success at improving big pharma's profits, and done little or nothing at producing better outcomes for patients. More recent study outcomes continue to reflect this, and cardiologist are slowing arriving at this conclusion. More patients are being removed from the drugs without problems, and cardiologists are no longer treating to the the numbers, or at least, that is what they tell me.

    My muscle problems resulted directly from 80mg daily of pravastatin, and were only resolved after removal from the drug, plus an additional 3-1/2 months to completely wash out the after effects. Why has it taken a dozen years for the medical community to learn what Big Pharma knew many years ago? Those wanting less regulation of the drug industry, need to consider this question thouroughly, and realize the implications before approving the next big 'breakthrough' drug developed by Big Pharma.
    bobby75703 responded:
    Yep. You are 100% on target.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Actually several researchers have been working to prove the link between LDLc and heart disease. One such work has evidence that may well have proven the link. The research includes data from 17 studies and over 62,000 participants of which 12,000 had known heart disease.

    I will post the paper but it is a difficult read unless you are familiar with the concepts of mendelian randomization (MR) and weighted allele scores. If I can help explain them let me know.

    In any case, here's the summary;

    First, as we expected, our data show that LDLc causes heart disease, and we already know this from clinical trials. This LDLc effect helped to validate our methods. We then identified that, similar to LDLc, triglycerides are very likely to cause heart disease. We found that individuals with genetically higher triglycerides had a higher risk of heart disease. In contrast, our data suggests that HDLc is unlikely to play an important role in the development of heart disease.

    interestingly, this study found that genetically higher triglycerides likely also play a role in CAD which was not well understood previously. Also, HDLc seems to not have the protective properties as thought. Here's the paper, enjoy.

    Here's another couple of links to some article about this work;

    Before anyone asks, here's the funding;

    M.V.H. was funded by a UK Medical Research Council Population Health Scientist Fellowship (G0802432). F.W.A. is supported by UCL Hospitals NIHR Biomedical Research Centre. D.I.S. is supported by a Medical Research Council Doctoral Training Award and a grant from the Rosetrees Foundation. ME.K. is supported by the National Institute of Aging and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute (HL36310). S.E.H. and P.J.T. are supported by the British Heart Foundation (BHF RG 08/008, PG/07/133/24260), UK Medical Research Council, the US National Institutes of Health (grant NHLBI 33014) and Du Pont Pharma, Wilmington, USA. N.J.S. holds a Chair funded by the British Heart Foundation and is an NIHR Senior Investigator. MI.K. is supported by the National Institute of Aging, the Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the Academy of Finland. A.D.H. and J.P.C. are supported by the National Institute of Health Research University College London Hospitals Biomedical Research Centre. Funding to pay the Open Access publication charges for this article was provided by RCUK.
    bobby75703 responded:
    They can spend the rest of eternity trying to link LDL cholesterol levels to heart disease.

    In my opinion jrkirk hit a bulls eye with his observations.
    iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:
    Perhaps you don't understand the research, do you need me to explain anything to you as I know this was a very complicated read.

    They basically have proven the link, but to understand it there is big picture thinking involved so we can get past the personal beliefs that hold us back and limit our thought processes. You know, Ostrich and sand.
    bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:
    I honestly wish we knew what causes heart disease. Its one of the great mysteries of this world.

    There are many theories in heart disease. Its enough to make a persons head spin. We also have risk factors. Some clear. Some not so clear.

    But one thing is very clear. The public spends billions of dollars every year in hopes of warding off heart disease. From Cheerios to supplements to prescription drugs. Yet not one of these has proven to prevent or eradicate heart disease.

    Instead of making scientific progress, we are stuck in marketing mode. Truck loads of money are being made on perceived benefits of this food, that food, this supplement or that drug. The absolute worst thing that could happen to those selling would be a cure for heart disease.

    This is why its not in their best interest to find a cure. This is whats standing in the way of making scientific progress.

    Instead of making progress we have been appealing to the market. Low fat, low carb, low cholesterol, high this, low that. Sell Sell Sell.

    Conflicts of interest have become so bad, some of our research papers and medical journals can now be moved to the fictional section of the library.

    Granted this is just my opinion, but I think jrkirk has seen the big picture. I believe all of us, including myself, need to pull off our blindfolds and see this for what it is. Then and only then will the stage be set to beat heart disease.

    Featuring Experts

    There are no Expert stories for this community right now

    Helpful Tips

    The anti-inflammatory effects of statins
    Nicely worded; The anti-inflammatory action of statins is recognized as one of the most effective treatments for atherosclerosis and ... More
    Was this Helpful?
    1 of 2 found this helpful

    Helpful Resources

    Be the first to post a Resource!

    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.