|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: NHS care rationed according to willingness to poison oneself
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
I am a supporter of the NHS. I think single-payer health care is the least worst option, all things considered. I probably owe my life to the NHS.
But I would have thought that healthcare would not be rationed on the basis of adherence to some particular controversial theory of the cause of atherosclerosis, namely The Lipid Hypothesis, and the wonder drug solution to it: statins.
I've tried two different types of statins since my heart procedure (two stents inserted in a 100% occluded major coronary artery) two years ago, and I have suffered significant side effects. Needless to say, I have done some reading on the subject, and I am not convinced that cholesterol is the great bogeyman that the "lipid fanatics" say it is.
So I try to exercise, diet well and the rest of the lifestyle stuff you're supposed to do. But I would have thought that someone in my position ought to be allowed to have a regular heart check up (an echocardiogram) every once in a while, just to check it's working OK. But no. Because I refuse to take the cash cow statins of Big Pharma, mainly because they have fucked me up, I will not be allowed this check up. So I guess the NHS just wants me to fucking well go off and die, because I am not prepared to hand over my grubby £7+ prescription fee each month to Big Pharma to be fucked up. I could understand it if statins really were absolutely essential to cardiac health, but they are not, because research does not support the claim that there is a correlation between heart disease and high cholesterol. It's a fucking theory, that is unproven.
Oh well. I suppose Big Pharma needs the cash. Their executives need their pensions. So I guess I ought to sympathise with them. But then again... if I'm dead, then that's not really going to help them financially either.
Don't think I'm knocking the NHS (you Tea Party-ers who may be reading this and rubbing your hands in glee at another horror story from Communist Britain). No. I am knocking the capitalist bastards who have taken over this institution, and who are now manipulating health care for private advantage.
Rant over.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
If you got a season ticket for your prescription (which you can because you have a chronic condition), would it work out cheaper? Not suggesting you take or not take the statins, but at least you could fake it better.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
You have to pay for prescriptions?
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
I thought the flaw in the link was between cholesterol and saturated fat in food and high cholesterol, not high cholesterol and heart disease. What does your GP say about your concerns?
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Patdys
Iron Wannabe
RooK-Annoyer
# 9397
|
Posted
Statins are not always benign. I am sorry you have had significant side effects.
Kudos for minimising cardiovascular risks with diet execise etc. Statins have evidence to show they reduce CVS risk as well. Large studies. But you need to pick the patients who will get the most benefit and you also need to be prepared to stop if the side effects are intolerable.
In Australia, there is currently a journalistic shit storm over statins and people are dropping them by the score.
[sort of MEDICAL ADVICE]- See your doctor and discuss the pros and cons of statins if you are considering discontinuing them -[/sort of MEDICAL ADVICE]
The joy of the opening post is the acknowledgement heart disease is multifactorial- and you need to address all the factors you can. This will be different for each individual. And can include statins. Me, I have shitty genes and a high stress/emotionally draining job. My ship title identifies my main CVS risk lowering behaviour.
And the first person to mention vaccines gets posted a kilo of butter, a carton of cigarettes, a keg and several box sets of DVD's.
I am sorry for your NHS issues. Universally, health systems struggle with resource allocation. But it doesn't make it any easier for those caught at the bottom.
--------------------
Marathon run. Next Dream. Australian this time.
Posts: 3511 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
You have to pay for prescriptions?
Most people do in England. I have to pay about £40 a year for the privilege of being able to breathe.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Edith
Shipmate
# 16978
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
You have to pay for prescriptions?
Not if you're pregnant, not if you're a pensioner, not if you are entitled to claim JSA and not if you are under 18.
But I suspect we down here are subsidising you up there.
--------------------
Edith
Posts: 256 | From: UK | Registered: Mar 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
You don't have to pay for prescriptions if you have a medical exemption certificate either, which is given if you have one of a handful of chronic conditions. There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to which conditions qualify you for a medical exemption - eg diabetes does, but asthma doesn't.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
There doesn't seem to be any rhyme or reason to which conditions qualify you for a medical exemption - ...asthma doesn't.
Don't I know it ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
EE
I've a relative with the same problem - can't take statins, but not taking means the loon in charge of cardio-care at the local hospital won't schedule them for checks.
They've found a free solution:
1. Get one more prescription for statins - note down name.
2. Inform cardio-care lot you intend to buy your own from (you choose - net, USA, Mars) because its cheaper.
3. You thus take nothing and get the tests.
You're not lying because you've only informed cardio-care you "intend" to buy your own - not your fault if they assume you're buying and swallowing.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Edith:
But I suspect we down here are subsidising you up there.
Not specifically my prescriptions: Health is a devolved matter.
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
EE, The world works on theories, and when evidence supports one sufficiently to show a significant benefit in following it then that is what the doctors do. To claim a theory hasn't been fully proven and thus is rubbish is unfortunately a complete misunderstanding of how medicine, and the rest of science, works.
Perhaps in a year or two further research and clinical evidence will show a more beneficial drug to use on heart disease prevention and the NHS will prescribe that instead, but for now, the best clinical evidence we have supports statins as the best prevention for high-LDL cholesterol-related heart disease currently available. Diet and exercise, (while useful in terms of general health) have been shown by the evidence to be all-but-useless in their ability to prevent heart disease itself. No doctor should still be advising this on its own for patients with heart disease or high LDL-cholesterol.
Of course any drug has side effects, despite the best efforts to minimise them. There are many kinds of statins though, and any GP will start you on the cheapest first, since most people are fine with that, and if they trigger a bad reaction, they will keep changing the dose and drug until they find one that's right for you.
Unfortunately this is a bit trial and error, since, despite the best efforts of doctors, drug side effects on individuals cannot be tested without actually giving them to that individual and seeing what happens. I was fortunate and the cheap drug they first gave me triggered no side effects at all. But if the first two they've tried gave you side effects, you should ask for these to be changed, and changed again until they find one that your body can cope with, not just give up on the whole thing. This may be understandable, given your frustration, but your health is far too important to give up on.
And unfortunately patients cannot demand whichever test they feel like whenever they feel like them. The NHS doesn't work on the assumption that the patient knows what's best for them, since patients (surprisingly even after a few hours of reading some articles and blogs on the internet), don't know a fraction of what a doctor does after six years of medical school and 2-8 years of clinical training.
The doctors will decide whether an ECG test will show any useful data that can be used to monitor the progress of your specific heart problems. ECGs are the most publically well-known test so its natural that people would think this is some kind of magic heart-o-vision but heart disease isn't one thing, but many different conditions, some of which may be usefully observable on ECGs and some are better monitored via a variety of other tests.
If the clinical evidence supports the fact that it would be useful to monitor your heart regularly using ECG or any other test then the doctors would make sure this is arranged.
However, the evidence doesn't support this at all, the most useful test to monitor the progression of future heart problems is a lipid test. However if you reject the clinical evidence entirely, choosing to ignore the best theories of medically trained professionals in favour of some random reading you've done yourself, I'm afraid the doctors won't be able to help you.
Its your choice to wash your hands of the best that medicine has to offer you, preferring to denigrate the professionals as 'lipid fanatics' instead. But if you do this, don't blame them for not rushing to do whatever medically useless procedure you demand after you've rejected their help.
[ 13. December 2013, 10:54: Message edited by: Hawk ]
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
Unfortunately, one of the common side-effects of statins is muscle soreness, which discourages exercise.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk
EE, The world works on theories, and when evidence supports one sufficiently to show a significant benefit in following it then that is what the doctors do. To claim a theory hasn't been fully proven and thus is rubbish is unfortunately a complete misunderstanding of how medicine, and the rest of science, works.
It is true that the world works on theories, but I note that you put the word in the plural. It does not work on one theory that ignores all other data and evidence. But what happens is this: a theory becomes widely accepted - for whatever reason - and due to this is then promoted as 'fact'. Anyone who dares to question that theory is then dismissed as a crank or as a member of a "small but vocal minority". And, of course, such a person is lectured on the nature of science, and condescendingly informed that he doesn't understand how science works.
Well, I do know how science works. Fundamentally it works on evidence, not opinion - even expert opinion. It works according to a robust method of interpreting data honestly and fairly (not selectively like Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study, for example), not dismissing studies that contradict that hypothesis, as has happened in the case of the lipid hypothesis, in which 'anomalies' such as the diet and health of various ethnic groups are dismissed as 'paradoxes', such as the Masai, the French, the Inuit, the comparison between Punjab and southern India; and not dismissing large scale studies that contradict the lipid hypothesis such as MONICA and the INTERHEART Project, for example. I could give more examples, but these are a few off the top of my head.
Furthermore, we hear a lot about reducing cholesterol, but rarely how far it should be safely reduced. Given that cholesterol is an exceedingly important substance for cell, nervous system and brain function, then as much diligence needs to be expended in keeping cholesterol levels from sinking too low as there is in trying to reduce them. I have never been told what the safe minimum level is, and there is plenty of evidence (which I can present) to prove that low cholesterol levels can lead to serious diseases and death. Here is an NHS site, for example, which makes the most incredibly irresponsible statement: "It is likely that the lower the cholesterol level the better." One might as well say: "The lower the volume of blood in a person's body the better". That is NOT science or good medicine by any stretch of the imagination, and you can lecture me as much as you like, but I have the intelligence to see danger when it is so flagrantly presented.
I have much more to say on this subject, but I am rather busy at the moment, so I will leave it there for now...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But what happens is this: a theory becomes widely accepted - for whatever reason - and due to this is then promoted as 'fact'. Anyone who dares to question that theory is then dismissed as a crank or as a member of a "small but vocal minority". And, of course, such a person is lectured on the nature of science, and condescendingly informed that he doesn't understand how science works.
That’s not what happens. That’s a selective and twisted ‘conspiracy’ theory unsupported by the evidence. Which is why I implied you didn’t understand how it works.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I do know how science works. Fundamentally it works on evidence, not opinion - even expert opinion. It works according to a robust method of interpreting data honestly and fairly (not selectively like Ancel Keys' Seven Countries Study, for example), not dismissing studies that contradict that hypothesis, as has happened in the case of the lipid hypothesis, in which 'anomalies' such as the diet and health of various ethnic groups are dismissed as 'paradoxes', such as the Masai, the French, the Inuit, the comparison between Punjab and southern India; and not dismissing large scale studies that contradict the lipid hypothesis such as MONICA and the INTERHEART Project, for example. I could give more examples, but these are a few off the top of my head.
I won’t play ‘studies at dawn’ with you since I’m not an expert myself and have little interest in cherry picking whichever study supports my preconceptions. Studies need to be analysed and weighed against each other, not just lined up and used to beat people round the head with. The process of judging best clinical practice is not just numbers of studies pro vs against, but carefully picking and choosing between them by professionals with a deep understanding of clinical and statistical analysis. I don’t know why these contradictory studies you mention have been minimised or outweighed by other studies, but I am confident it was for a good reason, not just because ‘they’ are out to get us.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Furthermore, we hear a lot about reducing cholesterol, but rarely how far it should be safely reduced. Given that cholesterol is an exceedingly important substance for cell, nervous system and brain function, then as much diligence needs to be expended in keeping cholesterol levels from sinking too low as there is in trying to reduce them. I have never been told what the safe minimum level is, and there is plenty of evidence (which I can present) to prove that low cholesterol levels can lead to serious diseases and death. Here is an NHS site, for example, which makes the most incredibly irresponsible statement: "It is likely that the lower the cholesterol level the better." One might as well say: "The lower the volume of blood in a person's body the better". That is NOT science or good medicine by any stretch of the imagination, and you can lecture me as much as you like, but I have the intelligence to see danger when it is so flagrantly presented.
Unfortunately you appear to have conflated both LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol as though they are one thing. Admittedly the particular NHS webpage you've linked to is very badly dumbed down so the lowest intelligence patients possible can understand it. But for someone as allegedly well-read in this area as you, the fact that you seemingly have no idea about safe relative HDL and LDL levels strikes me as a significant indicator.
HDL cholesterol is ‘good’ and a healthy amount is considered beneficial (total cholesterol should be not much more than 5.2 milimoles per litre, and HDL itself not below 1 milimole per litre). HDL comes from diet. However heart disease is associated with LDL cholesterol which can’t be regulated by diet since it’s produced by your own liver. Some people’s livers produce more than others. LDL should not be any more than 2.6 milimoles per litre for people at risk of heart disease. For LDL, the less you have the better. For HDL, a healthy balance is needed. Statins can reduce LDL very effectively, while diet can only affect HDL.
This is basic stuff, which I (not a medical professional myself) learned about as soon as I started talking to my GP about statins. The fact that you don’t even know these basic figures, yet claim you’ve researched this in great detail and can throw study names around like confetti tells me a lot about your so-called ‘research’.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk
This is basic stuff, which I (not a medical professional myself) learned about as soon as I started talking to my GP about statins. The fact that you don’t even know these basic figures, yet claim you’ve researched this in great detail and can throw study names around like confetti tells me a lot about your so-called ‘research’.
I know that this is the hell board, but the fact that you are so nauseatingly condescending in your manner rather undermines any claim you have to objectivity and scholarship.
And this is further emphasised by the following comment:
quote:
For LDL, the less you have the better.
So you think that the low-density lipoprotein molecule (which, of course, is not cholesterol at all, but a transporter protein) is not at all necessary for the transportation of cholesterol and other lipids around the body? So do you think that HDL can perform all the functions of LDL?
Do confirm your thoughts about this, and then I will see whether you really know what you are talking about.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Here is an NHS site, for example, which makes the most incredibly irresponsible statement: "It is likely that the lower the cholesterol level the better." One might as well say: "The lower the volume of blood in a person's body the better".
No, one might as well not say that, because it's not the same sort of thing at all. There are fairly obvious deleterious effects of not having much blood volume, not the same with cholesterol. There are lots of studies demonstrating a link between a raised cholesterol level and cardiovascular disease and death. I'll go and find one if you like. It's not that difficult.
I'm sorry you're having a crap time with statins. Side effects are reasonably common. Sometimes people get on better with a different statin - I see you've tried two - perhaps converse with your GP - there are still more.
It might be that you've not been offered an ECG because (gasp) it wouldn't show anything useful.
As for fucking theories. Well. There are lots of iffy ones doing the rounds, usually linked to iffy targets and subclinical outcome measures that drug company sponsored trials change during the trial to make the drugs look better. Drug companies have a long and ignoble history of trial manipulation and cover up, that's nothing new. But when it comes to statins, I gently suggest that you're aiming at the wrong target.
If you're interested in a sceptical review of trials, I heartily recommend Richard Lehmans' bmj blog. Easy reading for a layman. (I manage and IANAD). http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2013/12/09/richard-lehmans-journal-review-9-december-2013/
His review of last week's bmj might be of interest: "For many years he has pointed out the fact that statins alone among LDL-cholesterol lowering drugs reduce cardiovascular risk, and that using them should depend on the level of risk, not the level of cholesterol."
There are new cholesterol lowering guidelines from the AHA and American College of Cardiology, which you can find easily as a pdf. You might be encouraged to know, given your efforts to reduce your risk via diet, that there's a shift away from cholesterol targets towards addressing risk rather than cholesterol level per se. But even so, getting cross with statins really is the wrong target.
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
anoesis
Shipmate
# 14189
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Firenze:
You have to pay for prescriptions?
Most people do in England. I have to pay about £40 a year for the privilege of being able to breathe.
Seems a pretty reasonable bargain ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
I don't know how the situation in NZ compares to UK w.r.t. prescriptions, but it is bound to be similar. Here, if your income (or income divided by household members) is below a certain threshold, then you have a subsidy card for prescriptions. For the rest of us, prescriptions are not free, but most of the common meds are still pretty cheap. It has probably cost us about $30NZD for our son to be able to breathe this year past - which is about one-eighth the price of a single visit to a specialist allergist for his eczema, which various GP's battled with in vain before sending us on...
--------------------
The history of humanity give one little hope that strength left to its own devices won't be abused. Indeed, it gives one little ground to think that strength would continue to exist if it were not abused. -- Dafyd --
Posts: 993 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Well, I do know how science works. Fundamentally it works on evidence, not opinion - even expert opinion.
That is quite wrong. Science works on theories argued from the evidence. I observe evidence that 3 galahs have just flown overhead. I could from that evidence derive a theory that all birds flying overhead today will be pink and grey. You would probably argue that my evidence is insufficient, and the matter proceed from there.
2 hundred years ago, the evidence was that atoms were the smallest particle of matter. Since then, more and more particles have been discovered, of ever decreasing size. A couple of years ago, there was a theory that the Higgs bosun existed, based on many observations of the behaviour of other particles explicable by the existence of the bosun. Science worked on the basis of that theory until the recent tests which detected the particle.
Read your Bronowski.
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
"It is likely that the lower the cholesterol level the better." One might as well say: "The lower the volume of blood in a person's body the better".
One might as well say: "the less often you type, the better".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Hawk
Semi-social raptor
# 14289
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Hawk
This is basic stuff, which I (not a medical professional myself) learned about as soon as I started talking to my GP about statins. The fact that you don’t even know these basic figures, yet claim you’ve researched this in great detail and can throw study names around like confetti tells me a lot about your so-called ‘research’.
I know that this is the hell board, but the fact that you are so nauseatingly condescending in your manner rather undermines any claim you have to objectivity and scholarship.
And this is further emphasised by the following comment:
quote:
For LDL, the less you have the better.
So you think that the low-density lipoprotein molecule (which, of course, is not cholesterol at all, but a transporter protein) is not at all necessary for the transportation of cholesterol and other lipids around the body? So do you think that HDL can perform all the functions of LDL?
Do confirm your thoughts about this, and then I will see whether you really know what you are talking about.
This is Hell so I have no interest in being objective or scholarly, especially to ignorant conspiracy theorists who shoot themselves in the foot then blame the NHS for ruining their shoes. If you want to play at being a pretend doctor go ahead but I won't be joining you.
--------------------
“We are to find God in what we know, not in what we don't know." Dietrich Bonhoeffer
See my blog for 'interesting' thoughts
Posts: 1739 | From: Oxford, UK | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
I have to admit that this thread surprises me. Of all areas of medicine, cardiovascular disease is one with lots and lots of evidence. And the evidence for statins is pretty good.
Firstly lets get one thing clear. Statins are not expensive:
Atorvastatin: 10mg, 28 tabs: £1.17
Fluvastatin: 20mg, 28 tabs: £2.32
Pravastatin: 10mg, 28 tabs: £1.19
Rosuvastatin: 5 mg, 28 tabs: £18.03 (So that one's a bit expensive)
Simvastatin: 10 mg, 28 tabs: 85p
Secondly it would really surprise me if a cardiology unit would offer you a echocardiogram and not do it because your not on a statin.
Thirdly the value of an echo depends very much on the situation. There are essentially four modalities of investigation for the heart: ECG which shows electrical activity of the heart. This can give a lot of information but in someone with known ischaemic heart disease it normally does not change in a way that is prognostically useful. It can, but often not. An Echocardiogram shows the anatomy and physiology fo the heart. This can be vitally important after a cardiac event or if symptoms change but in terms of prognosticating coronary vessel disease often not useful - it only shows what damage has been done to the heart muscle not what the risk is.
The test that shows that is angiography. Literally injecting some contrast into the coronary vessels and using XRay to see where the blood flow is compromised. The problem with this is unlike the other two, it's quite invasive and not without risk and hence is only done when there is a clear benefit - either because an intervention (like a stent) can be done at the same time or to plan heart surgery. The forth is blood tests - which again are pretty much only useful to diagnose a coronary event.
If you look at the NICE guidelines, statins are recommended for people whose 10 year risk of a cardiovascular event is greater than 20%. This is because the evidence shows a benefit for these people. If the risk is lower then it's (currently) not in the recommendations.
A Cochrane review published this year supports the use of statins is people without proven cardio-vascular disease. So-called primary prevention. Overall these data suggest a 14% reduction in all-cause mortality.
Forthly whilst you are right that in-theory too-low cholesterol would be harmful, in practice, the data overwhelming shows that statins reduce cholesterol levels that are high but do not cause abnormally-low levels. In clinical practise this just isn't seen.
It may not be appropriate for you to be on statins. But the idea that this is some big foolish, accepted-wisdom-conspiracy to make money for drug companies is a bit silly when there is a huge amount of evidence that statins not only reduce cholesterol - but more to the point reduce mortality but they are also very cheap drugs.
AFZ
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
If you got a season ticket for your prescription (which you can because you have a chronic condition), would it work out cheaper? Not suggesting you take or not take the statins, but at least you could fake it better.
Nope - it's £108 to buy an annual prescription pre-payment certificate (PPC), so you only start saving if you buy two or more medications a month. You don't save if you're buying monthly asthma medications - says another asthmatic through gritted teeth. I would only save money if I start getting a lot of chest infections and have to buy a lot of antibiotics, and I take the asthma meds to prevent that.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Mmm - and EE, having read alienfromzog's post above, before you wander off to your GP and demand an angiogram a little anecdote as to the side effects of angiograms:
A few years ago I worked with a student with learning difficulties linked to his congenital heart condition. He had an angiogram to improve his heart function as an older teenager, which did help a bit. But he was left with nerve damage and reduced movement in his left arm - a recognised side-effect - which somewhat complicated other things.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jemima the 9th
Shipmate
# 15106
|
Posted
Oops, confused ECG with echocardiogram. *hangs head in shame*.
And following on from CK and afz's posts, the issue with all tests, I suppose, is what you're going to do with the result. Perhaps a good analogy is blood glucose testing in diabetes. It's interesting to see what the levels are (either day by day or over longer term) but only really useful if it would lead to a change in treatment, I would think.
[ 14. December 2013, 10:03: Message edited by: Jemima the 9th ]
Posts: 801 | From: UK | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
