Study: Statins Cause Brain Decline

[donnay]

Study: Statins Cause Brain Decline

By David Brownstein, M.D. | Wednesday, 22 Jul 2015 04:41 PM

In a report published in the journal Neurological Research, scientists studied the effects of statins on cognitive function.

The study included 329 subjects over 65 years old, who were screened for cognitive dysfunction using the mini-mental state examination (MMSE). The subjects were also screened for depression using the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS).

The researchers found no difference in MMSE and GDS scores between subjects with and without high cholesterol.

However, statin users had lower MMSE and higher depression scores compared to those not taking statins.

Continued...

[angelatc]

Personally, I would never trust an article that doesn't link to the original study.


And even in the conclusion holds true, I'd still rather take the statin since it means lowering my risk of having a freaking stroke or a heart attack. It's pretty odd that he ignored those outcomes in the scathing nonsense opinion he ended with

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Personally, I would never trust an article that doesn't link to the original study.


And even in the conclusion holds true, I'd still rather take the statin than have a freaking stroke or attack. It's pretty odd that he ignored that possibility in the scathing nonsense opinion he ended with

yeah it's hard to believe Donnay especially when he says smoking cigarettes is good for you, but I know elderly people who have taken statins for decades and now have parkinsons. Now where's Zippy to say it's only one in a million?

[angelatc]

OMG - the last paragraph is enough to make me discount anything the quack posts ever again. If you Google you will see that there are several studies that already prove him proposition wrong, so this "revelation" isn't anything new.

But here's the thing: while statins can cause memory loss, that disappears when the drug is stopped. However, the evidence that they can be an effective tool in treating Alzheimer's disease is stacking up at a fairly steady rate.

http://www.alzheimersweekly.com/2013...lzheimers.html

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

How the f*** can it treat alzheimers if it causes memory loss? I'm sure fires can also heal burns. No, don't even answer that

[angelatc]

yeah it's hard to believe Donnay especially when he says smoking cigarettes is good for you, but I know elderly people who have taken statins for decades and now have parkinsons. Now where's Zippy to say it's only one in a million?

I am not sure what you're saying. In the general population, the odds of getting Parkinson's is already less than one in a million, but it's the result of a faulty gene meeting an external trigger. To my knowledge, statins haven't been shown to be a trigger.

[angelatc]

How the f*** can it treat alzheimers if it causes memory loss?

Science is hard - stick with it though. It doesn't cause memory loss in all patients. Its a side effect in some patients. As such, the memory loss disappears when the patient is taken off the drug.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

I am not sure what you're saying. In the general population, the odds of getting Parkinson's is already less than one in a million, but it's the result of a faulty gene meeting an external trigger. To my knowledge, statins haven't been shown to be a trigger.

The odds of getting Parkinson's is less than one in a million? With that logic, the United States only has 300ish people walking around with Parkinson's. What's the chances of me knowing 4 of those 300? Probably less than one in a million

Science is hard - stick with it though. It doesn't cause memory loss in all patients. Its a side effect in some patients. As such, the memory loss disappears when the patient is taken off the drug.

Apparently math is pretty hard, too.

[Acala]

I am not sure what you're saying. In the general population, the odds of getting Parkinson's is already less than one in a million, but it's the result of a faulty gene meeting an external trigger. To my knowledge, statins haven't been shown to be a trigger.

Hmmmm . . . do you have a study that pinpoints this faulty gene? I was not aware that one had been identified.

[angelatc]

The odds of getting Parkinson's is less than one in a million? With that logic, the United States only has 300ish people walking around with Parkinson's. What's the chances of me knowing 4 of those 300? Probably less than one in a million


Apparently math is pretty hard, too.

Correlation does not equal causation. Using your logic, you could be the aforementioned external trigger.

But you probably aren't. Lots of thing seem to factor in. First and foremost is age. If you are around a lot of people who take statins, then you're probably around a lot of people who are at least creeping up on senior citizenship.

But that's not the only thing that changes the odds of getting it. Use of illicit drugs, welding, having lighter colored hair, being a male, being Amish, high levels of manganese in the local water, or being employed as a physician, dentist, teacher, lawyer, or a computer programmer (young onset PD diagnosis is greatest in this group) clerical occupations, agricultural worker, or in a hunting or forestry occupation.

http://www.neurology24.com/parkinsons-disease.htm

Aging is the major risk factor in Parkinson's disease (PD). In fact, the risk of being diagnosed with Parkinson's disease rises steeply after the age of 50. The lifetime risk of getting Parkinson's disease is slightly less than 1.3 %, and men are 1.5 times more likely to get Parkinson's in their lifetime than females.


From Figure 1 (at the link), it could look as if the lifetime risk is larger than 1.3%, but it isn't, as many people die before the age of 80 years.

[angelatc]

Hmmmm . . . do you have a study that pinpoints this faulty gene? I was not aware that one had been identified.

It isn't a single gene. There are 9 identified so far if memory serves. Which it might not, as I am past 50 and do indeed suffer from the expected loss of long term data retention. I'll find the source and post it.

ETA: Looks like the number is at least 12. This is circa 2011: http://www.webmd.com/parkinsons-dise...-of-parkinsons

[donnay]

The Grave Dangers of Statin Drugs and the Surprising Benefits of Cholesterol

Once again the medical establishment gets it completely backward.

By Alliance for Natural Health

NPR recently ran a story that suggests terminally ill patients can safely stop taking cholesterol-reducing statin drugs. The final quote of the article is illuminating: “Most of the studies focus on when to start a medication; there’s been very little focus on when do you stop it.” No surprise there: whether you’re very young or very old, Big Pharma would love you to continue buying statins—for a very long time indeed.

Heart disease, as many of us know, is one of the leading causes of death in the US, killing about 610,000 people each year. Big Pharma—in the belief that cholesterol is the primary factor in heart disease—developed statin drugs that would lower cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease. The drugs, which have been accompanied by massive marketing campaigns, are huge moneymakers for the drug industry, to the tune of about $29 billion worth of sales in 2013. That’s the kind of outrageous money you make when you convince one in four Americans over the age of 45 to take statins.

Over the years we’ve reported on a wide range of negative health effects that have been linked to these drugs. Here is a survey of some of these findings:

Statins interfere with the production of coenzyme Q10, which supports the body’s immune and nervous systems, boosts heart and other muscle health, maintains normal blood pressure, and much more.
Statins weaken the immune system, make it difficult to fight off bacterial infections, and increase the production of cytokines, which trigger and sustain inflammation.
They make some patients unable to concentrate or remember words, and are linked to muscle and neurological problems, including Lou Gehrig’s Disease.
Statins inhibit the beneficial effects of omega-3 fatty acids by promoting the metabolism of omega-6 fatty acids, which increases insulin resistance and the risk of developing diabetes.

Continued...

[angelatc]

Nobody here is saying that cholesterol must be abolished, and I think we all can agree that it is in fact necessary for our bodies to function properly. This thread is about the memory loss associated with statin treatment.

So not sure why DonnaY felt compelled to post that article instead of actually weighing in on the points we raised in response to your original article.

Except that's what you always do, I mean.

Some drugs have some negative side effects in some people. Those very same drugs can produce positive outcomes in other patients. Sometimes, some patients even have both.

I do not know why you never seem able to grasp that relatively simple concept. Nobody here is saying what you posted is flat out wrong (which is actually a good day for you) but we are saying that it is being intentionally taken out of context to scare people.

[jj-]

And even in the conclusion holds true, I'd still rather take the statin since it means lowering my risk of having a freaking stroke or a heart attack. It's pretty odd that he ignored those outcomes in the scathing nonsense opinion he ended with

You can also reduce cholesterol taking:

1. Vitamin E (the gamma tocopherol form)
2. The active form of the thyroid hormone
3. Donating blood if you have enough iron stores
4. Consuming one carrot a day on an empty stomach (because you eliminate more bile, which is made of cholesterol)

I'm sure there are many other healthier ways than $#@!ing up your brain.

[Warrior_of_Freedom]

Nobody here is saying that cholesterol must be abolished, and I think we all can agree that it is in fact necessary for our bodies to function properly. This thread is about the memory loss associated with statin treatment.

So not sure why DonnaY felt compelled to post that article instead of actually weighing in on the points we raised in response to your original article.

Except that's what you always do, I mean.

Some drugs have some negative side effects in some people. Those very same drugs can produce positive outcomes in other patients. Sometimes, some patients even have both.

I do not know why you never seem able to grasp that relatively simple concept. Nobody here is saying what you posted is flat out wrong (which is actually a good day for you) but we are saying that it is being intentionally taken out of context to scare people.

How about you expound on your claim that only 300 people in the United States have parkinson's? Every medication should be taken with a grain of salt. Googling for 2 seconds and posting an article doesn't make you a scientist. Anti-science? don't make me laugh. That's the exact type of rhetoric a liberal will spout off if you think mandatory vaccination is not a good thing.

Correlation does not equal causation.

No $#@!, but correlation is investigated to see if one causes the other. It's anti-science to come to one conclusion without investigating and constantly testing a theory. We could make a whole thread about how many times science was wrong. But hey, it's your brain, not mine. I only take medication if it's absolutely necessary. I really would like to know some drugs that have no side effects. Pharmaceutical companies will tell you a medicine is safe until suddenly a study finds out millions of people are being harmed by a drug and it's recalled. Well it's a little too late for that, now isn't it? Damage has been done.

The trust some of you people put into doctors (who just believe what they are told to believe anyway) and the drug industry astounds me. Same level of delusion in people that think Obama is a good person.

[donnay]

Statistics on Parkinson's
Who Has Parkinson's?

As many as one million Americans live with Parkinson's disease, which is more than the combined number of people diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy and Lou Gehrig's disease.
Approximately 60,000 Americans are diagnosed with Parkinson's disease each year, and this number does not reflect the thousands of cases that go undetected.
An estimated seven to 10 million people worldwide are living with Parkinson's disease.
Incidence of Parkinson’s increases with age, but an estimated four percent of people with PD are diagnosed before the age of 50.

Men are one and a half times more likely to have Parkinson's than women.

Source

[donnay]

Statin Drugs Place Millions of Americans at Risk of Serious Health Problems

It's important to note that statins are classified as a "pregnancy Category X medication" meaning, it causes serious birth defects, and should NEVER be used by a woman who is pregnant or planning a pregnancy. If it is prescribed it is simply gross negligence and malpractice as many doctors are ignorant of this important piece of information as it is relatively recently identified.

Statins have also been shown to increase your risk of diabetes, via a number of different mechanisms. The most important one is that they increase insulin resistance, which can be extremely harmful to your health. Increased insulin resistance contributes to chronic inflammation in your body, and inflammation is the hallmark of most diseases. In fact, increased insulin resistance can lead to heart disease, which, ironically, is the primary reason for taking a cholesterol-reducing drug in the first place. It can also promote belly fat, high blood pressure, heart attacks, chronic fatigue, thyroid disruption, and diseases like Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, and cancer.

Secondly, statins increase your diabetes risk by actually raising your blood sugar. When you eat a meal that contains starches and sugar, some of the excess sugar goes to your liver, which then stores it away as cholesterol and triglycerides. Statins work by preventing your liver from making cholesterol. As a result, your liver returns the sugar to your bloodstream, which raises your blood sugar levels.

Drug-induced diabetes and genuine type 2 diabetes are not necessarily identical. If you're on a statin drug and find that your blood glucose is elevated, it's possible that what you have is just hyperglycemia — a side effect, and the result of your medication. Unfortunately, many doctors will at that point mistakenly diagnose you with "type 2 diabetes," and possibly prescribe another drug, when all you may need to do is simply discontinue the statin in order for your blood glucose levels to revert back to normal.

Statin drugs also interfere with other biological functions. Of utmost importance, statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which accounts for many of its devastating results. Therefore, if you take a statin, you MUST take supplemental CoQ10, or better, the reduced form called ubiquinol. A recent study in the European Journal of Pharmacology2 showed that ubiquinol effectively rescued cells from the damage caused by the statin drug simvastatin, thereby protecting muscle cells from myopathies. Another study3 evaluated the benefits of CoQ10 and selenium supplementation for patients with statin-associated myopathy. Compared to those given a placebo, the treatment group experienced significantly less pain, decreased muscle weakness and cramps, and less fatigue.

Statins also interfere with the mevalonate pathway, which is the central pathway for the steroid management in your body.

Source

[donnay]

Statin drugs found to turn some people into raving, angry maniacs

Saturday, August 01, 2015 by: J. D. Heyes

Most people who live in large urban areas tend to be more liberal in their viewpoints. In addition, these larger, urban center are more likely (due to their sheer population numbers) to be users of mind-altering drugs pushed on them by Big Pharma that, according to a new study, can make them angry and psychotic.

Natural News readers are well aware that mass murderers are almost always taking some sort of psychotropic drugs, which desensitized them, made them angry and altered their moods in a variety of harmful ways. Now, scientists have discovered that statins, which can be used to treat high cholesterol, asthma and acne, can also alter moods and make normally placid people angry and aggressive, violent and jealous, suicidal and even homicidal.

As reported by the UK's Daily Mail:

This little understood threat was highlighted this month when researchers found that taking statins to lower cholesterol and prevent heart problems can make some women aggressive and violent, reports the authoritative science journal PLOS ONE.

In a study of 1,000 people by researchers from the University of California, scientists discovered a link between statins and aggression, and it was particularly significant in postmenopausal women over age 45.


Continued...

[Suzanimal]

I was reading an article the other week on Yahoo news that said they're (can't remember who "they" are) would like all adults over 50 on statins. I'll post when I find it.

Edit: Found it. Not at Yahoo.

The Stats on Statins: Should Healthy Adults Over 50 Take Them?

More People Should Get Statins, Report Says

Treating more Americans with statins is worth the small risk of side-effects and would be cost-effective, a new report finds.

New guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology in 2013 broadened the definition of who should get cholesterol-lowering statins, which are among the most widely prescribed drugs in the world. One of the recommendations was that statins should be prescribed to anyone with a 7.5 percent risk or higher of developing heart disease over the next 10 years.

Patients and doctors alike complained that the new guidelines were confusing. But in the new report, Dr. Thomas Gaziano of the Harvard School of Public Health and colleagues say they're in fact simpler than the old guidelines, which advised people to aim for a total cholesterol level of less than 200, keeping "bad" LDL cholesterol to 130 for average people and under 100 for those considered at risk of a heart attack.

There's an online tool that people or their doctors can use to calculate their risk of heart disease, which is based on age, sex, blood pressure and cholesterol levels.

Gaziano and colleagues created a computer simulation to see if giving statins to more people would be worth the risk of side-effects and the extra cost.

It would be, they report in the Journal of the American Medical Association.

"You have to be at extremely low risk before the risk of statins outweighs their significant, profound benefits," Gaziano said.

Experts estimate that another 8 million to 13 million Americans would get statins if everyone used the new criteria -- with just under half of all adults aged 40 to 75 eligible.

Statins, which include Lipitor, Mevacor, Crestor and Zocor, are extremely popular. They're prescribed to about 15 percent of U.S. adults, at a cost ranging from about $4 a month for the cheapest generic version to $600 for a pricey name-brand.

They can damage muscle in 5 to 15 percent of patients. In 2012, the Food and Drug Administration updated labeling on statins to include warnings about confusion and memory loss, elevated blood sugar leading to Type 2 diabetes, and muscle weakness.

But even with those risks, it's worthwhile, Gaziano's team found. And if even more people were given statins -- if they were given to people with a 3 percent risk of developing heart disease over 10 years -- another 160,000 heart attacks and strokes would be prevented, they estimated.

Limiting factors should be a patient's own preference about taking a daily pill, price and the risk of diabetes, they said.

"There is no longer any question as to whether to offer treatment with statins for patients for primary prevention, and there should now be fewer questions about how to treat and in whom," Dr. Philip Greenland, an expert in preventive medicine at Northwestern University and a senior editor of the journal, and Dr. Michael Lauer of the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute wrote in a commentary

http://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-...-finds-n391936

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[jj-]

I'll relay my statin stories again - because I'm one of the people who simply cannot take them due to the cognitive side effects.

If you have enough iron stores, you can reduce triglycerides and cholesterol simply by donating blood.

To check if you have enough iron stores, you can test ferritin and transferrin saturation, which aren't among the most expensive tests. If you have ferritin more than 100, that typically means you have plenty, but make sure to read a bit online about how one interprets these two tests.

I'm completely unsurprised that blocking cholesterol production can cause all sorts of mental problems, because cholesterol is a precursor to pregnenolone, which is very important for the brain. Incidentally, you can buy and consume and benefit from pregnenolone, it's considered safe.

[donnay]

I was reading an article the other week on Yahoo news that said they're (can't remember who "they" are) would like all adults over 50 on statins. I'll post when I find it.

Edit: Found it. Not at Yahoo.

The Stats on Statins: Should Healthy Adults Over 50 Take Them?



http://www.nbcnews.com/health/heart-...-finds-n391936

To answer your question, NO!

Incredible. Cholesterol is NOT the enemy! You need it to function well.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[CPUd]

BREAKING: 100% PROOF Statins Cure Cancer (corollary: cholesterol will kill you)

[CPUd]

BREAKING: 100% PROOF Statins Cause Cancer (corollary: cholesterol will not kill you)

[donnay]

BREAKING: CPUd has short-circuited.

[jj-]

For me to be using blood donation to dump cholesterol (or reducing it with statins) would be like treating a house fire by blowing away the smoke; none of those remedies are effective treatments for the oxidation.

Blood donation is not just about 'dumping' the cholesterol, it comes with other benefits such as improved insulin sensitivity.

Maybe the mechanisms aren't completely understood exactly, but I'm sure it isn't just about dumping cholesterol, and it's safe especially if you checked your iron stores.

jj, that'd be a worthwhile approach if I thought that cholesterol was the problem (and I could donate blood on a daily basis - LOL). My only interest in cholesterol is as a marker of the amount of inflammation in my arteries – because the arterial inflammation is the disease, not the high cholesterol. The high cholesterol is part of my body’s attempt to repair that inflammation. High cholesterol is simply a red flag that my body has detected an elevated level of inflammation and is attempting to repair it.

High cholesterol can be caused also by another reason:

Your body isn't converting well cholesterol to hormones. Cholesterol is the precursor of pregnenolone, testosterone, progesterone, which are very important. Sometimes your production of cholesterol is optimal, but the problem is in the conversion step. If that's the case, it's good to reduce the cholesterol in a healthy way (such as vitamin E or donating blood, not statins).

[rg17]

Statism also causes brain decline.

[Voluntarist]

xxxxx

[jj-]

I usually look for a naturally-occurring analog for my health regimen. Even statins have that going for them - in terms of red yeast rice or oyster mushrooms. I can't visualize what the natural analog would be for blood-letting.

OK. I will make my last post, don't want to bother you so much.

If you look at what the body does when there is an excess of some substance, you'll see that iron is the hardest to get rid of. You take 5 grams of vitamin C? No problem, it's gone in a few hours or days. At the other extreme is iron. You take 5 grams of iron? It will take you 13 years of an iron free diet to eliminate that iron.

Thus, many people, especially men because they don't menstruate, have a higher level of iron than ideal. Iron stores accumulate in the liver and pancreas and affect many processes.

What's the natural analogue? Possibly living in a society where iron wasn't added to flour, or where the diet was more based on fruits, which is lower in iron. Absent that, bloodletting is the only efficient relatively natural way to get rid of it.

Not many people look at their iron stores, which are not measured by serum iron, but by the other tests that I mentioned. My impression is that the normal range is too wide, and agree with Mercola's view on what is a good level. I think he is good on iron.