"Steve Pope" > wrote in message
...
> Julie Bove > wrote:
>
>>Steve Pope wrote:
>
>>> The risk that statins might cause diabetes is nowhere near
>>> the risk that either beta-blockers or corticosteroids might cause
>>> diabetes. I would be much more concerned about the later two
>>> categories of meds.
>
>>I am a diabetic. Not only did statins raise my blood sugar a lot and
>>cause
>>memory problems and locked up muscles but they caused me to have dry skin,
>>badly peeling lips and hair loss. The hair is just now growing back but
>>luckily the other problems resolved pretty much right away after stopping
>>the meds.
>
>>Do I blame the beta blocker I was taking prior to getting diabetes for
>>giving me the diabetes? Probably. Given my family history I likely would
>>have gotten it at some point. But I got it sooner than my brother and my
>>dad.
>
> So you had three risk factors -- family history, statins, and
> beta-blockers.
> Hard to assign blame among those three.

The statins were recent. After I had diabetes. But since I am already
testing my blood sugar, I know for a FACT that they were raising my blood
sugar. On the statin? Numbers up over 400. Once I stopped the statin,
numbers dropped to around 80 to 140.
>
> One factor in favor of prescribing statins is there are not (at least,
> widely agreed-upon) alternatives for statins as a first-line cholesterol
> control med. Whereas beta-blockers, there are plenty of alternative
> hypertension meds. (Some other conditions, other than hypertension, that
> require beta-blockers there are probably no alternatives.)

At the time I was put on the beta blocker I was told it would have less side
effects than the other BP meds. Yeah, right.
>
> Still, I firmly believe that cowboy medicine is largely responsible
> for the diabetes epidemic. I have yet to see any evidence to the
> contrary.

I really have no clue but it is certainly rampant.

Julie Bove > wrote:

>"Steve Pope" > wrote in message


>> One factor in favor of prescribing statins is there are not (at least,
>> widely agreed-upon) alternatives for statins as a first-line cholesterol
>> control med. Whereas beta-blockers, there are plenty of alternative
>> hypertension meds. (Some other conditions, other than hypertension, that
>> require beta-blockers there are probably no alternatives.)

>At the time I was put on the beta blocker I was told it would have less side
>effects than the other BP meds. Yeah, right.

Similar with me. I have been on a beta-blocker for 14 years, but at a low
dose. Persons newly diagnosed with hypertension are not put on
beta-blockers. This is because of the diabetes risk. I took steps (this
involved some amount of effort) to not increase my beta-blocker dose.
Currently I am on two BP meds, but at the lowest therapeutic dose of
each -- 25 mg atenolol, and 30 mg nifedipine. I have tried at least three
others (that I can think of) each of which caused side effects.

I would resist any effort to increase the beta-blocker dose, probably
by trying the next new med down the list.

Steve