Go Back   Natural Medicine Talk > Health > Heart Health

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-27-2006, 05:08 AM
Gemini Gemini is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Gemini is on a distinguished road
Default Lipitor Side Effects?

Is it possible to get side effects from a drug after taking it for a year? I have developed pain in my right knee & pain in my left thigh & it is not going away with pain rubs that I have been using for nearly a week now, along with soaks in epsom salts. I don't know what else this could be if it's not medication related? Any thoughts?



Eve
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-27-2006, 06:06 AM
EarlyBird EarlyBird is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Northern Ky.
Posts: 2,059
EarlyBird is on a distinguished road
Default Lipitor?

I don't know anything about Lipitor, but as many times as the ads for Welbutrin state that "there are NO sexual side-effects" makes me think they protest TOO much, meaning there must BE sexual side-effects.

Maybe you could send an email to the Company asking for their advice or info, Gemini.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-27-2006, 06:13 AM
Xania's Avatar
Xania Xania is offline
Enlightener
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: UK
Posts: 942
Xania is on a distinguished road
Default

Gemini, unfortunately, your muscle pain is likely to be the result of Lipitor side effects. Common side-effects of statins are muscle pain and weakness, rashes, insomnia, restless legs, and liver problems.
I took statins for a while after a heart problem 2 years ago, and had to stop taking it. I have read that muscle problems can arise many months or even years afterr first taking the drugs.
Perhaps you could look into non-pharmaceitical means of controlling your lipids, if that needs to be done.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 04-27-2006, 08:07 AM
just me just me is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: im lost, have no idea
Posts: 1,176
just me is on a distinguished road
Default

someone once posted a site called askapatient.com, this site gives you the opportunity to type in a drug name, and see what others say about the drug... A rating system of satisfaction has been done on a scale of 1-5, and lipitor got a 2.2..... Here is the page that I pulled up for lipitor.....
http://www.askapatient.com/viewratin...2&name=LIPITOR .....hope this doesnt mess up the thread,
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 04-27-2006, 02:09 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

To lower blood cholesterol, statins like Lipitor interfere with the liver enzyme that makes cholesterol out of excess blood glucose. However, statins also interfere with cellular enzymes that make coenzyme Q10, which is essential for energy production in all cells, particularly muscles, especiallly heart muscle.

So one gets to lower cholesterol levels and still die of a heart attack.

The muscle pain you're experiencing may be this effect. (Be glad it wasn't your heart that was affected first?) Rhabdomyolysis (death of muscle cells) is one known effect of statins, as well as myopathy. See

http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/medef...i_v12n1_e.html

and

http://www.rhabdomyolysis.org/pages/rhabdo_statins.html

and more if you search "statins rhabdomyolysis."

There's really no reason why one should take this deadly group of poisons. One does not blindly interfere with essential body enzymes and expect to get away with it.

If you're worried about blood cholesterol (and you shouldn't be if it's below 300), just control your blood glucose levels by diet and exercise.

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 04-27-2006, 04:28 PM
Mojo Mojo is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8
Mojo is on a distinguished road
Default

Just an aside - I took Lipitor more than 5 years before I began to be plagued with muscle pain in my legs, lower back and buttocks. I also had a bothersome bout with fatigue. I am proof the side effects don't have to show up immediately after beginning the Medicine.

Unfortunately, my entire family had high cholesterol so I got it through my genes and also the food I was eating. I am almost a vegetarian now with only an occasional piece of chicken or fish. I have been holding my lipids in check with my diet, walking and I also take 3 grams of niacin a day in lieu of a statin drug. My total hovers around 210 which does not give me any grief.

I just remembered that when I quit Lipitor over a 3 week period, I also said goodbye to noises in my ears (sounded like listening to a large seashell except louder). I attributed that to the Lipitor because that was the only thing I changed in my meds.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 04-27-2006, 05:37 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Just a thought: I think we should wean ourselves away from the term, "side effects."

There are only effects. Period. Good AND bad.

We are being deluded to think that a substance is good for us (for some effects) if we could be spared of the "side" effects.

No way.

The effects are always there.

In most instances, the desired effect is even a lot more inconsistent than the more consistent unwanted effects.

A good example is cancer chemo. Recovery is rarely guaranteed, but we are absolutely guaranteed to lose our hair, damage our liver, kidneys and bone marrow, and destroy our immune system.

Better stop ranting now... 8)

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 04-28-2006, 05:36 AM
SharonC SharonC is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8
SharonC is on a distinguished road
Default

They are lowering the standards for chloresterol all the time in order to get more people on the statins,,When I read my alternative health newsleters, the docs say it should be at 200 or a little more,,they said studies show males have a greater risk of death with it under 200...too low is dangerous,,,chloresterol is really not the culprit in heart disease,,
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 04-28-2006, 07:03 AM
Gemini Gemini is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Gemini is on a distinguished road
Default "Effects"


A good example is cancer chemo. Recovery is rarely guaranteed, but we are absolutely guaranteed to lose our hair, damage our liver, kidneys and bone marrow, and destroy our immune system.

I couldn't agree more! Besides my problem, I am sitting here worrying as my Mom waits for resutls of a bone scan, with the possibility that it could be bone cancer & if it is, that she will go the "traditional" route for treatment, which I would never do...I am going to be researching to see if there are any alternative treatments out there to address this, if indeed she has it...
I hate drugs & if I hadn't had a heart attack, I would probably still not be taking any, except Synthroid, but now, the Cardioligist has me on Toprol, Plavix & Lipitor & I am too "frightened" to just quit taking them....ugh...

Eve
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 04-28-2006, 07:06 AM
Mojo Mojo is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 8
Mojo is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bifrost99
Just a thought: I think we should wean ourselves away from the term, "side effects."

There are only effects. Period. Good AND bad.

We are being deluded to think that a substance is good for us (for some effects) if we could be spared of the "side" effects.

No way. Gerry
I see your point, Gerry but the term "side" prior to effects refers to peripheral or secondary effects, especially an undesirable secondary effect of a drug or therapy.

To each his/her own I guess - no big deal.......
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 04-28-2006, 12:50 PM
Mad Scientest's Avatar
Mad Scientest Mad Scientest is offline
Lecturer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Illinois
Posts: 2,077
Mad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura aboutMad Scientest has a spectacular aura about
Default

Gemini
For what it is worth here is my cholesterol story on this and how it lead to my participation on this site.
About a couple years ago I was changing heath insurance companies and the new company required a heath exam. Ok so I make an appointment with the family witchdoctor and he performs the standard tests. Well it turns out my BP was on the high side and cholesterol was 220. He gives me some BP pills (small ones that I can swallow ) and tells me to come back in 6 months.

Six months later more tests, BP down to reasonable level and cholesterol down to 190, Iím thinking hey thatís good, BUT he wants me to take some more pills (Niaspan) to get it even lower. Iím skeptical but he must know what he is doing. Right? So I go out and buy my $100 bottle of pills (a one month supply) get home tore open the bag and read the label on the bottle.

Upon reading the label something did not make sense it tells me I should take two tablets at night HOWEVER 30 minutes before I need to take an aspirin!! Like what is this? Ok so then I then read the little info sheet that came with them. I guess youíre not really supposed to do that, but anyway I did, and I did not like what I read. It seems that the aspirin is used to counteract the undesirable side effect of these pills. Question why is it if these are such good pills that I need to take an aspirin to counter act their bad side effects????

Of course at the time I knew nothing about these pills so I then went on-line and to learn more about them and the more I learned, the more I questioned them and the less I liked them.

But seeing as how this is a cholesterol lowering drug and that I knew virtually nothing about cholesterol, again I went on-line to see what I could learn about cholesterol levels. Well gee wiz guess what? There are two schools of thought here, but you would never know that by listening to the usual media outlets that keep repeating high cholesterol bad, low cholesterol good. Yet there is a lot of data that does not support this conventional view.

There are statistics that do show that a group of people with high cholesterol who took cholesterol lower drugs DID reduce their chance of heart problems. This obviously is the statistic that the drug companies love to boldly promote as a reason for taking their drugs. However for some reason they somehow fail to advertise with the same passion the rest of the statistical data that shows that many of these same people were now dying from the side effects of the drugs that were to prevent them from dying of heart problems.

Now the statistic I found most interesting dealt with people with ďnormalĒ cholesterol levels. Surprisingly people with what is now considered normal levels appear to have essentially the same chance of developing heart problems as those with high cholesterol. So why are we taking these pills?

But what about people with really low cholesterol levels. Here we do see a correlation between cholesterol and heart disease. With it producing a noticeable increase in heart problems.

Finally what about people who have lived into their 80ís & 90ís surely as a group they must have low cholesterol levels. Wrong, they are typically high while many of their friends with low numbers have already passed on.

So after researching all of this I took my $100 bottle of pills, and to the horror of friend wife, literally threw them in the garbage.


[If a man speaks in the forest, and there is no woman there to hear him, is he still wrong?]
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 04-28-2006, 01:29 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mojo
I see your point, Gerry but the term "side" prior to effects refers to peripheral or secondary effects, especially an undesirable secondary effect of a drug or therapy.
I think this is exactly what the drug companies would like us to believe. Actually, it's not true. The "side" effects are neither peripheral nor secondary, though indeed most, if not all, are definitely undesirable. In almost all cases, what are called side effects are the primary effects. They definitely are not the "primary use" of a drug, but they usually are the primary and most consistent effects.

Going back to my example of cancer chemo, the "primary use" is to control cancer. However, the "primary effect" is to inhibit cell multiplication by poisoning them, affecting all cells and leading to immune suppression, liver and kidney damage, loss of hair, etc. So the latter are not secondary or peripheral. They're all the result of the primary effect.

Or consider statins. Their primary use is to lower blood cholesterol levels. However, their primary effect is to inhibit a cellular enzyme that is involved not only in cholesterol formation from excess glucose, but also in coenzyme Q10 formation. Thus the resulting muscle degeneration (which can even lead to heart attacks) is still from the primary effect.

Just from writing this, I now see that the "primary use" of a drug should be distinguished from it effects. A drug will have its primary use, but all its effects are effects -- no "side" or "main" effect.

Just me. 8)

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 04-28-2006, 02:21 PM
Gemini Gemini is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Gemini is on a distinguished road
Default


I read your reply with much interest...Before the heart attack, I was very much against taking drugs & was trying to get off of them. I shunned the statins, even though I was unable to get my cholesterol level under 300. I was taking a lot of good supplements supposed to protect my heart. Along with high cholesterol, my CRP level was high, but I went merrily on my way, thinking I was healthy & doing the right thing, then I was struck down, & they started me on all of these drugs in the days I spent in the hospital & when I got out, I was told that if I wanted to avoid another by-pass surgery( I have three blocked arteries), then I had to keep on this regimine of drugs, so that is where I am now...of course, with these leg pains that I am experiencing now, I can't even do my exercise, which I now know is very important to my heart health, so I am quite frustrated & unsure of which direction to go...

Eve
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 04-28-2006, 02:39 PM
bifrost99 bifrost99 is offline
Beloved Mentor
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 555
bifrost99 will become famous soon enough
Default

Eve,

If you want to lower your blood cholesterol, simply control your blood glucose levels. Statins act on the liver enzyme that converts excess glucose to cholesterol. So if you don't have excess glucose, then you won't have cholesterol formation, with or without statins.

Dietary approach will include the extreme Atkins, or the moderate Zone, and the now many variations of these. Actually, you can make your own by being aware of glycemic loads of foods.

Better yet, engage in physical activity after meals. This causes muscles to absorb glucose from the blood without the need for insulin (which is also part of the cholesterol forming mechanism). Chromium also facilitates glucose absorption by cells, so be sure you're not deficient.

Since statins affect muscle by their inhibition of coenzyme Q10 synthesis, you might find relief by taking coenzyme Q10 supplements.

What other drugs are you taking? Let's see if we can do better. :wink:

Gerry
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-28-2006, 02:44 PM
Gemini Gemini is offline
Observer
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 30
Gemini is on a distinguished road
Default



"What other drugs are you taking? Let's see if we can do better."

Besides, the Lipitor, I take Toprol XL, the beta blocker is to keep my heart from "overworking", Plavix, to stop more blood clots from forming & causing another heart attack & I have been taking Synthroid for my hypothyroidism, since 1998...

Eve
Reply With Quote
Reply
Please reply to this thread with any new information or opinions.

Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Side effects of Tamiflu jw8725 Colds, Flu & Fever 5 10-12-2011 01:56 AM
Warfarin Interactions & Side Effects Bell Heart Health 1 01-16-2010 10:50 AM
Lithium side effects and inositol Dreamline Mental Health 2 09-23-2009 07:35 AM
Bad Side Effects showing up from HPV Vaccine scorpiotiger General Discussions 1 07-17-2008 08:47 AM
Alendronate side effects Xania Cancer 2 04-09-2008 04:20 PM