Oh, and yah, I take imitrex as well when I get a migraine. Works great for me!

Bworthey, your frustration is understandable. It sounds like you have a doctor who sees everything in black and white and deep down does not believe that people can change behavior for the better.

I haven't checked the top of this thread but have you read any of Dr Bernstein's books? He went to medical school to better understand his own diabetes and to feel confident in diet-driven treatment. Though he is aging, he continues to see patients. Perhaps his office would have an idea of a doctor in MS?

Absent that, you will have to do enough self education to be comfortable charting your own course. Janet has given you good references. I would also suggest reading Bernstein, Taubes, Jimmy Moore's new book Cholesterol Clarity, anything by Uffe Ravnskov. Gary Taubes describes diabetes as accelerated aging, therefore it comes with a cluster of other diseases. Nip the blood sugars in the bud (as you are doing) and you reduce your risk of cardiovascular disease as well.

Chances are you will never change your doctor's mind. But you CAN take control of your own health and improve on it. Good luck.

A little rant because I hear some of these things echoed by my boyfriend. Pardon me... just stepping up on my soapbox here.

It doesn't work that way. There isn't a pill that can undo the damage that eating crap does. The basis of all these issues is years of damage that eating crap does. Too many people bought into the belief that our modern medicine is remarkable, wonderful stuff and doctors are gods. Eat the crap and take the pills. Problem solved. Uh... no.

No. Doctors are fallible. They're pushed into doing what they do by institutions that adopt various standards, probably highly influenced by the pharma industry that whitewashes data and fails to publish or report poor outcomes.

If you hand over your health to a doctor without questioning or challenging or sometimes even defying them, you might not like how you end up.

That's up to you. You don't have to accept what your doctor says unquestioningly. You could take the trouble to educate yourself and make informed decisions with your doctor. Or you could get another doctor.

My parents always said their doctor was "good" if they were nice . My standards are a little higher.

Of course I'm frustrated. And I know I can't just take the meds and eat whatever I want but that seems like that may as well be what I'm doing right now given the statement my doctor made - even if diabetes is controlled with diet and exercise there is still a need for statins. I realize this is just one opinion.

My frustration lies too that there is so much CONFLICTING information out there and I honestly feel like I'm going at this alone right now. That's not y'all's fault - just saying. I realize I may have to defy my doc and conventional medicine. I do. My doc is trying to take the stance I suppose of informing and giving me his reasoning behind doing what he's doing rather than just saying here take this because I said so.

I don't know anymore. Now my wife and I are fighting about it!

That's the frustration of the uninformed, IMHO. Get some of the books, subscribe to some of the blogs and do some reading. Then you'll be in a much better place to make decisions. Try to understand why there are conflicting opinions. Learn why some studies are good and some are bad (Gary Taubes wrote something excellent about that).

I know there's a strong desire to put all your faith in doctors, but there's a price to be paid for willful ignorance.

If you and your wife don't see eye-to-eye on the topic then you might just need to stop discussing it with her.

BTW: If you understood that there is less than a 1 in 250 chance that your statins are doing anything helpful for you, would you be less inclined to take them? Actually, some of the NNT studies found it is more like 1 in 1000 in some populations.

Going at it alone? Time to start some serious reading. More than blogs, more than forums.

Do you believe your doctors explanations and reasoning? Then follow his advice. I suspect you do not believe them, or you would not be here. What you have to do is educate yourself till you believe the course you take is the correct one. I have done enough research to know that I will never take statins, want to eat in a way to keep BS low. You can get there, but it takes some work.

All good advice Nancy and Liz.

You only need to see how your numbers and weight have improved in a very short time to want to stay LC and not eat crap. I was explaining why your doctor has to abide by certain directives and CYA, not that I agree with him.

I try not to play doctor on the Internet, but my advice was: First try find a new doctor; there are ones that treat the whole person, who pay attention to side effects and not just see you as your bloodwork numbers. If a new doc is not possible, be non-compliant, at least about the statins (my husband is and he is 65, thin with 32 inch waist). Having joint pain in your early 30s is not acceptable. Frankly I'd chuck all the meds but that is a longer story.

Maybe you and wife could start by watching this 13 min CBN video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DsQEvxKGAMA Forget cholesterol, Inflammation is the Real Enemy.
If you have more time, this two part series from Australia, total an hour, is even better.
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/3876219.htm

I don't want to comment on what your doctor is doing or how he is going about it. But.

You are young and your statin is likely just to be to try and reduce cholesterol level (statins have other uses, which they are very good at). You can lower it yourself. Do it.

This is of course working on the fact that you have no other co-morbididities. The NNT data change depending on the population they are tested on. So for some it is 1:250 for others yes its 1:1000.

But this is the data we get shown, and is used to change the attitude of doctors
(from 2013)
Eight trials enrolling 24,674 subjects (42.7% females; mean age 73.0 ` 2.9 years; mean follow up 3.5 ` 1.5 years) were included in analyses. Statins, compared with placebo, significantly reduced the risk of MI by 39.4% (relative risk [RR]: 0.606 [95% confidence interval (CI): 0.434 to 0.847]; p 1⁄4 0.003) and the risk of stroke by 23.8% (RR: 0.762 [95% CI: 0.626 to 0.926]; p 1⁄4 0.006). In contrast, the risk of all-cause death (RR: 0.941 [95% CI: 0.856 to 1.035]; p 1⁄4 0.210) and of CV death (RR: 0.907 [95% CI: 0.686 to 1.199]; p 1⁄4 0.493) were not significantly reduced. New cancer onset did not differ between statin- and placebo-treated subjects (RR: 0.989 [95% CI: 0.851 to 1.151]; p 1⁄4 0.890).

(this set of results gave NNT of 142)

My personal approach is to inform my patients of what the options are and let them decided.

link to paper
http://ac.els-cdn.com/S073510971303...540aecf2acc2846

Just chiming in for support. My boyfriend's doctor is still obsessed with getting his ldl below 70 - no diabetes as he's a LC'er but he has had CVD. Seems if you have diabetes or CVD there is just no leeway if a patient doesn't want to take statins or other meds. The guidelines rule all. I eventually did get his cardiologist to drop a couple of things after talking to him about the research I'd read.
Can you talk to your doctor straight, say, look, there are good reasons I do not want to take this medication anymore but yet I don't wish to be labelled 'noncompliant'. Say that's not your intent, but you are wanting to work with him for your health.
Believe me, from what I've read on websites that are geared for medical professionals (I'm not one, just interested) there are plenty of physicians beginning to question the 'statins for everything' thinking.
As a fellow migraine sufferer, I sympathize. The fronts are giving me constant sinus pain. Topamax is great but it does mess with your senses. Also, watch out for hair loss. For a girl like me, anyway, that was an absolute no-go.

That's an awfully short follow-up to assure folks that statins don't increase cancer risk. But, I guess that's how it has to be, no?

Do doctors really think that 1.5 to 3.5 years is enough to assess cancer risk?

ETA: note the advanced age of the study participants. OK, statins are shown to be "good" for the elderly. Where's the data on the young?

Yea, it was meant to highlight how the research that is shoved down our throats is really lacking in a large number of areas!!!

Due to the large amount of garbage that is published trying to sift through it is so time consuming. I need to have a look at the meta-analysis in the various different situations.

But then that gets complicated as different statins are researched agains different controls, and when the start comparing them against current best practice life get very confused

Hey everyone, I just received the email from the Free on-line DiabetesSummit with link for today's speakers. The Keynote speaker is Jonny Bowden on the topic of:

Should All Diabetics Take Statin Medications?

Perfect for this discussion, and since he wrote the Cholesterol Myth with Dr. Sinatra, we know where he will be headed with his answer. But he is a good speaker, with fascinating detailed nutritional info. You can sign up for this summit anytime and just listen to this one talk today.

http://thediabetessummit.com/jbowde...aa6c 8d9cd267f

This was a classic excitable Dr.Jonny presentation, simple explanations, getting rave reviews in the comments as the best so far. His advice for important numbers was exactly as we have written here before, same advice in Cholesterol Clarity.
The most important ratio is Trigs/HDL. 2 or less is perfect, 5 needs some work, when you are up near 10 that is getting dangerous and quick action is needed. Since HDL takes time to improve ( it will rise on LC, with exercise and healthy saturated fats, but slowly) the best action to take is go very low carb and trigs will drop like a rock in 99.9% of people.

B-worthy, your blood work after only four months showed just that type of improvement. Nothing yet in HDL, but your Trigs dropped to a level that is close to OK, and if you re-tested again, likely are lower still, maybe with a rise in HDL this time. There is so much conflicting info on ratios, always happy to hear two sources agree.

Sorry I didn't mean to just abandon this - been a little busy with some things!

I guess the issue here with this now is that when trying to talk to my doc about my concerns, etc, is that he's not necessarily going to see the results from the side of the LC eating, but going to see if from the work of the statin. I don't know if everyone is saying that statins do not/will not lower cholesterol numbers at all, but I think you guys understand my point. Which of course brings me back to the original issue I guess of continuing them or not. I'm still reading/digging - though I haven't taken it in the last 4-5 days. I've upped the CoQ-10, but haven't noticed anything in regards to the joint pain. I know I'm expecting a lot in a short period of time! ha! Who isn't!? Just keep plugging along here I suppose.

I wish I kept better sources, but I've read somewhere that coQ10 restocking after statins can take many years - so for sure if you're expecting to FEEL a difference in weeks I think your expectations are out of line. I've taken statins in the past and am still taking coQ10 to balance/restore my body. If I go back on a statin I'll double my dose.

I can feel your frustration - it's hard to navigate the medical stuff if your doctor isn't listening.

I'm not diabetic but my recommendation for one simple source of information, and very pragmatic advice for managing the relationship with your doctor & the goal of reducing/eliminating medicine is to read Jenny Ruhl, who has 2 books Diabetes 101 and Diet 101, and runs the website diabetes101

She gives very detailed information about getting very tight control of your FBS and other diabetes markers, and how to provide that evidence and success to your doctor to make him your partner in reducing medication load.

Her recommendations on blood sugar control go well beyond the ADA and are much closer to Bernstein, and based on getting diabetic control to keep you out of end-organ damage, not just the minimum cutoff of acceptable numbers. And she is pragmatic, saying some people can get there without meds, some will need meds forever, some can transition but since she'"s clear on the goal, the paths make a lot of sense.