This time the cervical cancer vaccine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/ar...ancer-jab.html
The article headline is:
Revealed: The serious health concerns about the cervical cancer jab
Yet there is nothing in the story at all about these serious health concerns. Absolutely nothing at all, other than one anecdotal story about a mother who is scared of all vaccines.
I really wish they wouldn't publish crap like this.
Well the front cover has "Scientists raise fear of cancer linmk to statin used by thousands"Originally Posted by FarSideOfTheMoon
Follwed by the Big Headline.
"Cholesterol Pill Warning"
So as I'm on simvastatin I bought the paper to find out more. Turns out that what's been redflagged is a pill called Inergy which contains simvastatin and what appears to be a non-statin drug called ezetimibe. The statin part of the drug has not been implicated. No mechanism has been suggested by which ezetimibe could affect cancer. The result in the small study Published in the New England Journal of Medicine is described inside as possibly a statistical fluke. Two larger studies currently underway have shown no such cancer risk.
So given that the headline said "cancer link to statin" and that's the only reason I bought the paper, and there's no cancer link to any statin where do I go to get my 50p back?
It has been suggested on this board in the past that people who are stupid enough to give their money to woo practitioners, deserve to lose their money.
If so, the same must apply to the Daily Mail. In the 1930s it was popularly called "The Ha'penny Liar" and, if anything, it has got worse since. It writes crap about medicine, ghosts, UFOs, crop circles, everything, bloody everything. I wouldn't buy a copy if the front page headline said: "Important News About Croydon Bob Inside!"
You get it all on the web anyway, with added hi-res colour photos of various celebs in bikinis.
Predictably our NI cousins are protesting about the vaccine as well.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/northern_ireland/7595273.stm
Granted, the other reason I bought the paper was that a friend of the family has numenrous worries about statins about which we had a heated discussion the other day. I did promise to do some research for her and wondered if this story might be the source of some of her fears. She did mention a link with cancer which at the time I put down to "well if they're less likely to to die from a heart attack then the incidence of other causes of death are bound to rise in comparison" Since she admitted herself that she didn't really know what she was talking about but had just been told there were concerns but didn't understand them, I have to research not only the answers to these concerns but what the concerns of anti scientific health crazies actually are in this respect.
The Daily Mail is of course the ideal place to find out what crazies think.
Statins do have a lot of side effects though and you need to decide with your doctor whether the benefits outweigh all the risks before being prescribed or taking them.
This definitely has not come from the Daily Mail though - rather a drugs compendium and lots of research papers about side effects.
What you've said it true for all drugs. I have read the patient information leaflet and researched the safety profile online. Simvastain actually has an excellent safety profile. I am personally suffering no side effects. I have regular appointments to review my condition.
The person who is concerned about possible side effects is suffering from aches and is considering taking a co-enzyme Q10 supplement. I have discovered that Q10 defincinecy leading to aches has been observed as a rare side effect of simvastatin. My advice is to see her doctor first (of course) and only take a supplement if she is diagnosed with a defficiency.
Matt,
My father is convinced statins made him ill, in a kind of depressed/out-of-it kind of way. Is this remotely possible from the knowledge you've gained on them?
Whilst nobody can say it's not remotely possible I've not encountered any side effects like that in my reasearches though I've been mainly looking at myopathy.
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/289/13/1681 looks interesting but I haven't shelled out the required $15
The Q10 connection seems speculative.Statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) are associated with skeletal muscle complaints, including clinically important myositis and rhabdomyolysis, mild serum creatine kinase (CK) elevations, myalgia with and without elevated CK levels, muscle weakness, muscle cramps, and persistent myalgia and CK elevations after statin withdrawal. We performed a literature review to provide a clinical summary of statin-associated myopathy and discuss possible mediating mechanisms. We also update the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) reports on statin-associated rhabdomyolysis. Articles on statin myopathy were identified via a PubMed search through November 2002 and articles on statin clinical trials, case series, and review articles were identified via a PubMed search through January 2003. Adverse event reports of statin-associated rhabdomyolysis were also collected from the FDA MEDWATCH database. The literature review found that reports of muscle problems during statin clinical trials are extremely rare. The FDA MEDWATCH Reporting System lists 3339 cases of statin-associated rhabdomyolysis reported between January 1, 1990, and March 31, 2002. Cerivastatin was the most commonly implicated statin. Few data are available regarding the frequency of less-serious events such as muscle pain and weakness, which may affect 1% to 5% of patients. The risk of rhabdomyolysis and other adverse effects with statin use can be exacerbated by several factors, including compromised hepatic and renal function, hypothyroidism, diabetes, and concomitant medications. Medications such as the fibrate gemfibrozil alter statin metabolism and increase statin plasma concentration. How statins injure skeletal muscle is not clear, although recent evidence suggests that statins reduce the production of small regulatory proteins that are important for myocyte maintenance.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...ubmed_RVDocSum
And then I have my doubts about whether taking it as a supplement will actually increase Q10 levels in the cells where needed.Simvastatin, a hydroxymethylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, is a commonly used cholesterol-lowering agent. The long-term safety profile of simvastatin, established over 10 years of clinical use, is excellent. HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors block 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis. However, other important nonsterol compounds, such as coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), are also derived from the same synthetic pathway. CoQ10 is an essential carrier in the mitochondrial respiratory chain that participates in oxidative phosphorylation. Simvastatin and other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors have been documented to lower serum concentrations of CoQ10. It has been suggested that the adverse effect of myopathy caused by HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors is due to CoQ10 deficiency in the tissue mitochondria. Documentation of this cause-and-effect phenomenon, however, has been lacking. We offer evidence that lactic acidosis may develop as a complication of simvastatin therapy. Our patient also manifested the well-known HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor drug toxicities of rhabdomyolysis and hepatitis. The occurrence of these known adverse events with lactic acidosis in our patient suggests that interference of the mitochondrial respiratory chain may play a role in the toxicity of this class of drugs.
Now I can see how this side effect might be lead to a lacking of energy and fit some of the description of depression but "out of it" I've not see any direct psychotropic effects but there's thousands of articles to look at.
As for feeling out of it. Sorry I just don't know.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks