Statins and Mitochondrial Side Effects

http://www.spacedoc.com/statins-mitochondrial-side-effects

Since glycohydrolase is one of our ubiquitous glycoproteins, requiring dolichols for synthesis, one must consider the possibility of altered glycohydrolase availability with statin use because of the well-known tendency of statins to inhibit dolichols along with CoQ10.

Please understand that the effect I am writing about is not some rare, remotely possible event. Mevalonate blockade of varying degrees is inevitable when statins are used. Although every cell in our bodies is affected by reductase inhibition those cells having greater need of energy such as muscle and heart cells, kidney and liver will be affected more.

The only escape from the consequences of this inhibition is the presence of pathway alternatives to the usual mevalonate one for synthesis of CoQ10, dolichols or even cholesterol. Serum cholesterol occasionally does not respond to statin use, suggesting the presence of alternative pathways for synthesis. If this is true for cholesterol, it is true for all other biochemicals equally dependent upon the mevalonate pathway.

Other than for these considerations, mevalonate blockade is inevitable with statin use and is the cause of the overwhelming majority of adverse reactions. The consequence of CoQ10 and dolichol inhibition is mitochondrial damage. It is inescapable and every MD using or recommending these drugs needs to understand this.

Duane Graveline MD MPH
Former USAF Flight Surgeon
Former NASA Astronaut
Retired Family Doctor

Statins cause so much confusion. I've been prescribed them but I did stop taking them but to be honest, I don't really fully understand the pros and cons of the drug. I know I can Google various studies but, trouble is, not many of them agree ! Who are we to believe ? I am not a scientific person and I struggle with long papers explaining all this ! Can someone tell me, in laymans terms, when or who ( if ever ) should take them. Do they work or are they dangerous ?

Mo1905 wrote, "Can someone tell me, in laymans terms, when or who ( if ever ) should take them. Do they work or are they dangerous ?
My personal view, in layman's terms, is, "Never, nobody, probably not, yes". Hope this helps!  https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_biggrin.png

Or for a more considered answer, try, http://drmalcolmkendrick.org. Dr Kendrick has written a lot about statins (he isn't a fan) and explains his views in a witty and easy to read way in his book, "The Great Cholesterol Con".

Sally

Sally wrote:Mo1905 wrote, "Can someone tell me, in laymans terms, when or who ( if ever ) should take them. Do they work or are they dangerous ?
My personal view, in layman's terms, is, "Never, nobody, probably not, yes".  Hope this helps!  https://2img.net/i/fa/i/smiles/icon_biggrin.png

Or for a more considered answer, try, http://drmalcolmkendrick.org.  Dr Kendrick has written a lot about statins (he isn't a fan) and explains his views in a witty and easy to read way in his book, "The Great Cholesterol Con".  

Sally

Now it's times like these I do wish there was a *LIKE* button! Great post Sally!

Memo to Sir Rory Statin Gissa Job

"Gissa Job ! I can do that !" Yosser Hughes

Anyone with an interest in statin drugs in the UK, knows of Sir Rory Collins. Rory promotes statins, he believes they are life savers and wonderful drugs. Now, I am sure Rory is a paragon of integrity, and his honesty is beyond reproach, hence I want a job working for him. The job will be well paid and secure, as his outfit must be awash with money, received from big pharma. Zoe Harcombe stated recently.


"The web of funding around Collins, CTT, CTSU (Clinical Trial Service Unit) has proved astoundingly difficult to get to the bottom of. I had a bit of a breakthrough recently and came across a declaration of interest for Colin Baigent – CTT secretariat and close senior colleague of Collins. Check page five for current and recent grants. The following have been awarded to Colin Baigent and Rory Collins, (with other names mentioned alongside):
Merck & Schering £39 MILLION (2002-2011)
Merck £52 MILLION (2005-2013)
British Heart Foundation £9 MILLION (2005-2013) (Where does the BHF get that kind of money?) & then another grant from the BHF for £2.7 MILLION (2004-2013) & then a couple more for several hundreds of thousands of pounds.
Medical Research Council £13.8 MILLION (2008-2013) (Check the most recent appointees to the MRC - a Senior Vice President of Pfizer and Executive Vice President of Astra Zeneca).
Bayer A mere £965,000
John Wyeth Ltd £500,000
Novartis £350,000

That’s £114 MILLION before you get into the small change."

Statins are a $30 billion a year earner, yet no proof exists that you will live any longer if you take them. The benefits are minimal and the list of side effects long. Just as many people have heart attacks and strokes with so call 'good cholesterol' numbers as those with so called 'bad cholesterol numbers', that is a fact. The fact that so much money has to be pumped into the 24/7 sell job by the statinators should tell you something, what other drug, or in fact any service or product has been sold as hard as statins ? none that I can think of.

Come on Rory Gissa Job, any chance of an S Class Merc company motor ?

Eddie

If you have not had a heart attack in simple term taking a statins for 5 years in 1.6% it will be help prevent a heart attack. 98.4% will see no benefits many of them will be harm. Among one of the more important harm to diabetics is they make harder to control blood glucose since they increase insulin resistance. They can also cause diabetes on someone who is not. If you had a heart attack taking them for 5 years 2.6% will see a benefit (help prevent another heart attack), 97.4% will see no benefit.

You can read more on the case against statins.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-evidence-continues-to-mount-against-statins/#axzz38sHFvWCb

Numbers to treat;

http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/

Just spent some time relating my experience with statins pressed the send button and there it was gone   

mo1905 wrote:Statins cause so much confusion. I've been prescribed them but I did stop taking them but to be honest, I don't really fully understand the pros and cons of the drug. I know I can Google various studies but, trouble is, not many of them agree ! Who are we to believe ? I am not a scientific person and I struggle with long papers explaining all this ! Can someone tell me, in laymans terms, when or who ( if ever ) should take them. Do they work or are they dangerous ?

I concur Mo statins do cause confusion   When first diagnosed I was prescribed 40mg statins no mention was made of the possibility of side effects, within two weeks I was experiencing pains in the calf muscles shortly after I was having problems walking up even the smallest of inclines and even having problems just getting out of bed. When you add in the cognitive effects, night sweats, vivid dreams and lack of sleep I was lucky if I managed two hours a night you can see my experience of statins was a nightmare.

I've since found out the BP meds I was on at the time were contraindicated with simvastatin, the good news is that I'm down on record as being intolerant of statins.

Thanks for the replies. It seems I was right to stop taking them !

This is why I get confused. This is the NHS !!!!!
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthyhearts/Pages/Cholesterol.aspx

Is this the same NHS that tells us diabetics to base our meals on starchy carbs and reduce fats. Or Heart UK shills for big pharma.

HEART UK -The Nation’s Cholesterol Charity

Abbott Healthcare Alpro UK AstraZeneca BHR Pharma Cambridge Weight Plan Cereal Partners UK (Sh Wheat) Food & Drink Federation Fresenius Medical Care (UK) Limited Genzyme Therapeutics Hovis Kellogg’s (Optivita) Kowa Pharmaceutical Europe Co Limited L.IN.C Medical Systems Limited Merck Sharpe & Dhome PlanMyFood Pfizer Premier Foods Progenika Biopharma s.a. Roche Products Limited Unilever (Flora) Welch’s (Purple Grape Juice)

Always follow the money.

Kind regards Eddie

mo1905 wrote:This is why I get confused. This is the NHS !!!!!
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/Healthyhearts/Pages/Cholesterol.aspx

I know it's confusing mate but this is the same NHS that advises diabetics to base all of their meals on starchy carbs and applauds HbA1c levels of 7% or 53 mmol/s in new money meaning patients are leaving the docs with a big smile on their faces despite 7% meaning in real terms that they're running an average BG level of about 9mmol/s-twice that of a non diabetic and doing a power of no good.

Thanks Paul, Eddie, makes sense. Sometimes, the deeper you dig, the more s**t you find :-)

Taken from Dr. John Briffa's blog here http://www.drbriffa.com/2014/08/15/evidence-links-higher-cholesterol-with-lower-risk-of-death-in-older-individuals/

In another study published last year, researchers assessed the levels of cholesterol and risk of death in almost 120,000 adults living in Denmark [3]. The researchers found that having higher than recommended levels of total cholesterol was associated with a reduced risk of death.

For instance, in men aged 60-70, compared with those of total cholesterol levels of less than 5.0 mmol/l, those with total cholesterol levels of 5.00-5.99 had a 32 per cent reduced risk of death. For those with levels 6.0-7.99 mmol/l, risk of death was 33 per cent lower. Even in individuals with levels with 8.00 mmol/l and above, risk of death was no higher than it was for those with levels less than 5.0 mmol/l.

The results were similar for women too. In women aged 60-70, levels of 5.0-5.99 and 6.0-7.99 were associated with a 43 and 41 per cent reduced risk of death respectively.

In individuals aged 70 and over, the results were similar, except here, levels of total cholesterol of 8.00 mmol/l or more were associated with a reduced risk of death too (in both men and women).

In short, we are misguided if we assumed that higher levels of cholesterol are a sign of increased death risk. In older individuals, there is evidence that the reverse is true.

References:

1. Freitas WM, et al. Low HDL cholesterol but not high LDL cholesterol is independently associated with subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in healthy octogenarians. Aging Clin Exp Res. 2014 Jun 7. [Epub ahead of print]

2. Takata Y, et al. Serum total cholesterol concentration and 10-year mortality in an 85-year-old population. Clin Interv Aging. 2014;9:293-300

3. Association of lipoprotein levels with mortality in subjects aged 50 + without previous diabetes or cardiovascular disease: A population-based register study. Scandinavian Journal of Primary Health Care 2013;31(3):172-180

Eddie