noderhere, I am not a Physician, however this has been a subject of special study for me for the last 12 years.
"How does anyone know for sure the statin is causing the problem?"
What others have done is to discontinue the drug to see if there is any improvement, then rechallenge to see if symptoms return. But I would do this after talking with your doctor.
For many patients suffering from statin associated aches and pains, for most discontinuing the drug usually brings resolution within a few weeks. But sometimes it can take longer to repair the damage. For some patients months, others years. An unlucky few have permanent damage left in the drug's wake and never see 100% resolution.
There is no way I can you if what you are experiencing is related to the statin. But if somebody suffering from chronic body aches told me about it, the first thing I would ask is " Are you taking a cholesterol lowering drug?" Usually the answer is yes, and I have witnessed 100% resolution time and time again.
Those who do experience muscle pain on statins usually do so in the early phases of treatment. However no one is immune from experiencing statin associated muscle issues at any point in time. There are some cases where patients took them for years on end before encountering problems. One case comes to mind of 18 years and no problems, and then WHAM!
In recent years, in response to troubling and far-reaching questions about the availability and reliability of clinical trial data, reformers have called for new policies that would require drug companies and other clinical trial sponsors to provide outside researchers access to the data. The two announcements today appear to bring the open data movement closer to the tipping point.
While drug company sponsored studies continued to show "benefits" with statins in reducing heart attacks, there was the irony of statin patients being unable to demonstrate this benefit in themselves. The market remained hot based upon consumer perception lower cholesterol equated to reduced cardiovascular events.View Thread
Statins were very effective at lowering cholesterol and sales skyrocketed. Lipitor became the hottest selling drug. Competitors came out with "Me too" versions of statin drugs and the cholesterol lowering market grew into a multi billion dollar industry.
None of this would have taken place had the public never embraced the cholesterol theory.
Study after study boasted the benefits of statins reducing heart attacks and strokes, but in reality the rate of decline in deaths from heart disease remained unchanged pre and post statins.View Thread
The 1970's popularized the cholesterol theory. Public acceptance of the cholesterol theory was the vital link in the creation of the cholesterol lowering economy. Had the public not embraced the theory, the market would not exist today.
But the public did embrace the theory. Cholesterol became public enemy #1 and a new market was born.
This new demand gave the green light to invest millions of dollars into developing new drugs to lower cholesterol. By 1987 statins would enter the market.View Thread
But its not just printed articles that fuel consumer demand for cholesterol lowering pills. Prime time TV advertising plays a huge role.
"I had my first heart attack. I should have lowered my cholesterol. What was I thinking"
Wow. Making people feel guilty for not lowering their cholesterol and scaring them into buying a product.
Well, it worked. TV advertising is a very powerful sales tool aimed at fueling consumer demand.
But nothing fuels consumer demand better than a study that makes headlines. Turn on the TV news or headlines read "Major Study Shows Chocolate Reduces Heart Attacks By 50%" and you can bet chocolate sales will soar.View Thread
Buyers determine the market. Its always been that way and always will.
People will pay for something if there is a demand, but if that demand begins to erode, the market for that product or service erodes with it.
Perception plays a major role in demand. If people think they NEED something and its good for them, out comes the money. But if people think "I don't need that or want it" no sale is made.
Example: If I perceive taking vitamin C pills keeps me from getting a head cold, I may rush out and buy vitamin C. Doesn't matter if it works or not. My perception is it works, so I am easily separated from my money.
The supplement was purchased based upon consumer perception. But where did this perception come from? Media articles proclaiming the benefits fueled the perception taking vitamin C fights colds. But does it really work? I have no idea if it works or not. There is no proof. Just consumer perception, and that is all that is needed to score the sale.
By now this should be starting to sound familiar.
The cholesterol lowering market exists due to immense demand from consumers to rid themselves of this evil villain waiting to strike them dead from a heart attack. Media articles continue fuel the demand. Guidelines keep being revised allowing more people "qualify" to buy the product- for life.
Consumers perceive if they lower their cholesterol, they are averting a heart attack or extending their lives, but just like vitamin C and the common cold, there is no proof a would- be event was averted. There never will be.
The goal in buying statins is to avoid a heart attack and extend one's life, yet no consumer will ever have confirmation of receiving such a benefit as its impossible to prove.
So consumers can only rely on lower cholesterol numbers, all based upon a demonized image of cholesterol.
Meanwhile articles continue to fuel market demand by demonizing an substance essential for life.