Ban statins

whiteonion

Statin drugs should be banned, they have very dangerous side effects. The purpose of statin drugs is to lower cholestorol levels. The science behind the theory that high cholestorol leads to heart disease is shaky to say the least. Many people suffer ill effects from these drugs. These types of drugs should be banned. Why should Big Pharma be allowed to sell these dangerous products?

2Scoops

whiteonion wrote: »

The science behind the theory that high cholestorol leads to heart disease is shaky to say the least.

The science that statins reduce death from heart attacks and stroke is solid. Side effects are a risk with any drug, and statins are supposed to be discontinued in the small minority of patients who experience them. Banning things is rarely a good strategy... unless you hate freedom.

Wildlife Actor

2Scoops wrote: »

Banning things is rarely a good strategy... unless you hate freedom.

I hope Gahddafi hates statins, cos he's got a hell of a dilemma if he likes them...

whiteonion

The purpose of statins is to lower cholestorol levels. Cholestorol is ESSENTIAL for all animals. Why would you want to lower you cholestorol levels? The drug companies earn huge money on the taxpayers back. These kind of drugs should be banned and not be subsidised by the state. They tell lies to be able to sell their dangerous products. They've pushed lies for years that saturated fat is dangerous, and they say that cholestorol is dangerous. Why do people fall for these lies? Do people lack the capability of rational thought in this country?

alchemist33

2Scoops wrote: »

The science that statins reduce death from heart attacks and stroke is solid. Side effects are a risk with any drug, and statins are supposed to be discontinued in the small minority of patients who experience them. Banning things is rarely a good strategy... unless you hate freedom.

What he/she said.

Now, cost-effectiveness is a different matter. It would be nice if the new government tried to get the prices down. But there's nothing wrong with having treatment options.

2Scoops

whiteonion wrote: »

The purpose of statins is to lower cholestorol levels. Cholestorol is ESSENTIAL for all animals. Why would you want to lower you cholestorol levels?

The purpose of statins is to reduce death from heart attack and stroke. And they do. I don't hear you arguing against that. If I weigh the risks and decide that the chance to avoid a fatal heart attack is worth more to me than the chance of contracting a rarer side effect, why should you or anyone get to take the choice away from me by banning it?

Furthermore, they do not eliminate cholesterol. Rather, they reduce the circulating levels of LDL by internalizing it into cells. They even increase certain types of cholesterol - which should be good for you since you love cholesterol so much? :pac:

furiousox

whiteonion wrote: »

The purpose of statins is to lower cholestorol levels. Cholestorol is ESSENTIAL for all animals. Why would you want to lower you cholestorol levels? The drug companies earn huge money on the taxpayers back. These kind of drugs should be banned and not be subsidised by the state. They tell lies to be able to sell their dangerous products. They've pushed lies for years that saturated fat is dangerous, and they say that cholestorol is dangerous. Why do people fall for these lies? Do people lack the capability of rational thought in this country?

goat2

whiteonion wrote: »

The purpose of statins is to lower cholestorol levels. Cholestorol is ESSENTIAL for all animals. Why would you want to lower you cholestorol levels? The drug companies earn huge money on the taxpayers back. These kind of drugs should be banned and not be subsidised by the state. They tell lies to be able to sell their dangerous products. They've pushed lies for years that saturated fat is dangerous, and they say that cholestorol is dangerous. Why do people fall for these lies? Do people lack the capability of rational thought in this country?

two of my family are on statins, dont seem to have any side effects, and what are these side effects

whiteonion

"More research is needed into the effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a Cochrane review has found."
http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1050309/statin-use-primary-prevention-not-supported-evidence/
This seems to suggest that the evidence for statins lowering the rate of heart attacks is very shaky. I would never touch statins myself.

furiousox

Why are you so down on the statins man?
My chol count is 8.2, on statins it's 4.3
I LOVE STATINS!
PS Why are you talking about statins in the Politics thread?

whiteonion

furiousox wrote: »

Why are you so down on the statins man?
My chol count is 8.2, on statins it's 4.3
I LOVE STATINS!
PS Why are you talking about statins in the Politics thread?

Because I wish to debate a ban of these drugs.

2Scoops

whiteonion wrote: »

"More research is needed into the effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a Cochrane review has found."
http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1050309/statin-use-primary-prevention-not-supported-evidence/
This seems to suggest that the evidence for statins lowering the rate of heart attacks is very shaky. I would never touch statins myself.

You are aware that the review only applies to people who were at low risk of heart disease to begin with? That is, the kind of people who are not normally prescribed this medication. The evidence in people at high risk of heart disease is very strong. The use of statins in people at low risk is still in question but, as the review points out, there may be some merit to it.

goat2

why ban them when they do good,

2Scoops

whiteonion wrote: »

Because I wish to debate a ban of these drugs.

I am debating: why do you wish to reduce the freedoms of the people of this country?

whiteonion

2Scoops wrote: »

I am debating: why do you wish to reduce the freedoms of the people of this country?

Because obviously they are not able to handle it. There is a reason why dangerous drugs are banned.

2Scoops

whiteonion wrote: »

Because obviously they are not able to handle it.

Says who?

Wildlife Actor

This thread is a medical issue. Not a moral or political one. Move it to doctorland.

Jumpy

whiteonion wrote: »

"More research is needed into the effectiveness of statins for primary prevention of cardiovascular disease, a Cochrane review has found."
http://www.gponline.com/News/article/1050309/statin-use-primary-prevention-not-supported-evidence/
This seems to suggest that the evidence for statins lowering the rate of heart attacks is very shaky. I would never touch statins myself.

I think what you view as dangerous is extremely different to most people.

Banning something for the majority because you disagree with it is hardly democratic.

Secondly, may I suggest that your current raw meat diet is far more dangerous to your health than a statin treatment?

whiteonion

Jumpy wrote: »

I think what you view as dangerous is extremely different to most people.

Banning something for the majority because you disagree with it is hardly democratic.

Secondly, may I suggest that your current raw meat diet is far more dangerous to your health than a statin treatment?

You may think whatever you want but I think you are wrong.

goat2

you want to ban something that the people who are taking them know they are working for them, they reduce cholester and so prevent stroke and heart attack, keeping arteries from clogging, i know the work for family members, as they have reduced fat levels, and they do not have side effects, that is enough evidence for me right now

furiousox

Most prescribed medicines have potential side effects on a percentage of users OP.
So...ban all medicines???

goat2

would you ban wafarin then, another life saver

whiteonion

goat2 wrote: »

would you ban wafarin then, another life saver

I'm not familiar with this drug so I don't know.

goat2

why statins

whiteonion

goat2 wrote: »

why statins

There are many other drugs I want to ban as well, for instance ALL psychiatric drugs.

cavedave

whiteonion

Statin drugs should be banned, they have very dangerous side effects. The purpose of statin drugs is to lower cholestorol levels. The science behind the theory that high cholestorol leads to heart disease is shaky to say the least. Many people suffer ill effects from these drugs. These types of drugs should be banned. Why should Big Pharma be allowed to sell these dangerous products?

You can make a case that statins do not reduce mortality. This case is made here "More statin madness". You have not made a coherent case against statins though.

How do you feel about vitamins? There is evidence they increase mortality rates

on average supplements increase an ordinary adult’s chance of dying by 7%

Do you feel vitamin supplements are a political issue? If so how much do you think the government should intervene in the market? Ban advertising, ban sale outside pharmacies, make prescription only?

Nonoperational

What the... Bizzare thread this is. Politics forum going along nicely and all of a suddon... "BAN STATINS!". Someone on the sauce all day watching the election results?

I was expecting some tenuous comparison of FF to statins when I clicked into this thread...



Edit: Ahh, ban psychiatric drugs too. Now the clouds are lifting...

cavedave

gpf101 What the... Bizzare thread this is.

In fairness i think this is an interesting question. If something cannot be shown to work should it be banned? Or at a lower level of evidence if something the government spends money on has no evidence it works should the government stop spending money on it?

Say a drug was shown not to work. Would it be ok for the HSE to refuse to spend money on it? The VHI pays for homeopathy so we are willing as a nation to may money for medical quackery.

Many south American countries have evidence based social programs. If we are willing to stop the government spending money on useless medicine what about useless farm subsidies or social welfare programs?

Would evidence based politics work in more then the medical area?

hatrickpatrick

whiteonion wrote: »

Because obviously they are not able to handle it. There is a reason why dangerous drugs are banned.

Yes, because politicians believe they have a right to make our personal decisions for us.

No victim = no crime, imo. Your body, your choice.

Nonoperational

cavedave wrote: »

In fairness i think this is an interesting question. If something cannot be shown to work should it be banned? Or at a lower level of evidence if something the government spends money on has no evidence it works should the government stop spending money on it?

Say a drug was shown not to work. Would it be ok for the HSE to refuse to spend money on it? The VHI pays for homeopathy so we are willing as a nation to may money for medical quackery.

Many south American countries have evidence based social programs. If we are willing to stop the government spending money on useless medicine what about useless farm subsidies or social welfare programs?

Would evidence based politics work in more then the medical area?

That's a sensible argument. Ban Statins isn't. I would have to look at the latest literature before I answered properly.

The article linked suggested the primary prevention potential of statins may not be as great as was thought. Saying that they DO lower cholesterol. This may be a lot more important in people suffering from other conditions (diabetes, IHD ect) as opposed to primary prevention of atherosclerosis is healthy people.

The side effect profile of statins is also quite good. There are many many more dubious drugs out there than statins.

To add to that, calling statins dangerous and implying there is some sort of conspiracy afoot is malicious and untrue.

goat2

gpf101 wrote: »

That's a sensible argument. Ban Statins isn't. I would have to look at the latest literature before I answered properly.

The article linked suggested the primary prevention potential of statins may not be as great as was thought. Saying that they DO lower cholesterol. This may be a lot more important in people suffering from other conditions (diabetes, IHD ect) as opposed to primary prevention of atherosclerosis is healthy people.

The side effect profile of statins is also quite good. There are many many more dubious drugs out there than statins.

To add to that, calling statins dangerous and implying there is some sort of conspiracy afoot is malicious and untrue.

saying they are dangerous when we know people who are on them is a bit frightning
what are the side effects. in other words, where is the danger

MASTER...of the bra

goat2 wrote: »

would you ban wafarin then, another life saver

I read somewhere lately that "they" reckon that it's triglycerids and not cholesterol that does the harm (I just glanced over it,ok:o) and I reckon that as the patent runs out on the lip*tors of this world the big drugs companys will bring out triglycerid lowering drugs as the new money spinner.

I don't know if statins work (keep you healthy for longer), they definitely lower cholesterol but people taking them still have to angios pretty routinely so......

The eskimos never had heart disease until the ice started melting and food became scarce so there diet changed to something resembling ours.

There normal diet was lots of oily fish, Omega oils---> Natural blood thinners unlike warfarin.

Actually I know a few people that have been prescribed Omacor lately and now that I look at it, it's for lowering triglycerids and all it is is filtered Omega 3 to take out the heavy metals. Where does all the mercury come from?:(

This is a messy post.:)

SeanW

MASTER...of the bra wrote: »

Actually I know a few people that have been prescribed Omacor lately and now that I look at it, it's for lowering triglycerids and all it is is filtered Omega 3 to take out the heavy metals. Where does all the mercury come from?:(

Omega 3 pills often contain mercury because fish oils contain it - mercury (in addition to a long list of other nasties) is emitted from coal fired power plants and that gets into the seafood chain
You can thank the eco-whackos for that: if we were using more nuclear power and less coal, we'd not only have cheaper electricity and lower CO2 emissions, but less need for drugs like omacor.

nesf

This has nothing to do with Politics. Start this again in Health Sciences if you want to have this debate. The audience there will be far better placed to argue effectively with you.