On Jun 10, 2:51*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Sun, 10 Jun 2012 07:02:13 -0700 (PDT), "





wrote:
On Jun 8, 1:43*pm, Dogman wrote:
Just how effective are blood pressure medications?

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...re-blood-press....

"Even if we extend these NNTs over time, they still are not
impressive. Taking the best numbers here (stroke prevention in men),
an NNT of 160 over one year equates to an NNT of 32 over 5 years. So,
of 32 men treated, one will avoid a stroke, but the other 31 will not.
Which means 97 per cent of men taking two medications over 5 years
will not benefit in terms of stroke prevention.

"Now, of course, these slim benefits need to be weighed against the
potential adverse effects of antihypertensives (of which there are
many, unfortunately)."

That this doctor would call avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
a slim benefit pretty much tells you he's an idiot.

Yes, of course he's an "idiot," he isn't pushing drugs for every
ailment known to man!

No. What I clearly stated was that I consider him to be an
idiot because he says that avoiding one stroke in 32 men
in 5 years is a "slim benefit". I think most reasonable
people would say avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years
is a huge benefit. Especially if you happen to be the one
in 32.




One in 32 dead
or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me.

It also doesn't mean that any of another cohort of identically matched
32 men will have a stroke, either.

Statistics just aren't your thing, are they?

You and perhaps the doctor are the ones confused.
I just used HIS statistics. As to another cohort, there isn't
one. There isn't even a cohort of 32. If you read the
article he used a meta study to come up with his statistics.
Then he concluded that by treating 32 men with hypertension
you would prevent one stroke in 5 years. He called that
slim, which is bizarre.



As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of
blood pressure medication available today.

Yes, of course there is, because it's a lucrative business, but they
all come with pretty much the same package of side effects, one of
which is DEATH.

Oh please. More scare tactic nonsense.



Just listing all
the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but
scare tactics.

Actually, what it is, is being open and honest about taking drugs for
hypertension - they all come with a cost.

And what Dr. Briffa is saying, and what I am saying, is that you
should consider nutritional, diet, and lifestyle changes before
rushing out and taking a drug with known serious side-effects, because
there is beaucoup evidence out there that they can have a positive and
profound effect on one's hypertension.

And if that makes us "idiots," I'm happy to be one!

Someone who's blood pressure is 140 is probably
going to find it very easy to find a medication that lowers it
with no side effects. *Conversely, the person most likely to
have side effects because of the higher dosages required,
eg, someone at 200+, is also the person who is going to benefit the
most in terms of reducing the risk of heart attack, stroke, premature
death, etc.

Not necessarily, because until one learns WHY he or she has BP that
high, simply taking a drug for it may not help solve the underlying
REASON(S) for it.

With most cases of hypertension, there is no known underlying
reason. In some cases it's secondary to another disease. We
do know there are some steps that can be taken by people with
hypertension that can help, eg keep their weight under control,
excercise. I'm not suggesting that isn't a good idea. It is.
Virtually all the doctors out there are telling patients to lose
weight, exercise, etc. But when they come back 6 months,
a year later and they haven't lost weight, then what?

You seem to think anything can be treated without drugs. That
simply isn't the case. There are plenty of people out there that
have hypertension that are not overweight. And to suggest that
preventing one stroke among 32 men every 5 years is a slim
benefit, is just nuts.