If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
Just how effective are blood pressure medications? http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...e-medications/ "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)." Here's some of those adverse effects: Headache. Dizziness. Dry cough. Feeling weak. Low blood pressure (hypotension). Awareness of your heartbeat (palpitations). Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain. Dry mouth. Inflammation of the lining of the nose (rhinitis). Skin reactions such as rash, itching, hair loss or sweating. Faster than normal heartbeat (tachycardia). Irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias). Chest pain (angina). Shortness of breath. Increased level of potassium in the blood (hyperkalaemia). Severe swelling of lips, face, tongue or throat (angioedema - see warning above). Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis). Problems with kidney function. Disturbances in the normal levels of blood cells in the blood (tell you doctor if you get a sore throat, mouth ulcers, high temperature (fever), or feel tired or generally unwell while taking this medicine). Problems with liver function, including jaundice or hepatitis (consult your doctor promptly if you develop unexplained itching, yellowing of the skin or eyes, unusually dark urine, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains, loss of appetite or flu-like symptoms while taking this medicine). http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/heart-and...es/gopten.html Now the point here isn't to convince you that you should avoid drugs (or salt, etc.) at any cost, but to remind you that there are *always* risks when taking any kind of drug (risks the doctor will rarely be aware of), and that they should only be contemplated after considering diet, nutritional, and lifestyle changes. The comments make for an interesting read, too. Low-carb diets (and subsequent weight loss) helped several commenters get off BP meds entirely. Other diets can probably work, too, provided substantial weight loss is achieved. And exercise obviously helps, too. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On 6/8/2012 2:43 PM, Dogman wrote:
Just how effective are blood pressure medications? http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/06/08/j...e-medications/ "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)." Here's some of those adverse effects: Headache. Dizziness. Dry cough. Feeling weak. Low blood pressure (hypotension). Awareness of your heartbeat (palpitations). Disturbances of the gut such as diarrhoea, constipation, nausea, vomiting or abdominal pain. Dry mouth. Inflammation of the lining of the nose (rhinitis). Skin reactions such as rash, itching, hair loss or sweating. Faster than normal heartbeat (tachycardia). Irregular heartbeats (arrhythmias). Chest pain (angina). Shortness of breath. Increased level of potassium in the blood (hyperkalaemia). Severe swelling of lips, face, tongue or throat (angioedema - see warning above). Inflammation of the pancreas (pancreatitis). Problems with kidney function. Disturbances in the normal levels of blood cells in the blood (tell you doctor if you get a sore throat, mouth ulcers, high temperature (fever), or feel tired or generally unwell while taking this medicine). Problems with liver function, including jaundice or hepatitis (consult your doctor promptly if you develop unexplained itching, yellowing of the skin or eyes, unusually dark urine, nausea and vomiting, abdominal pains, loss of appetite or flu-like symptoms while taking this medicine). http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/heart-and...es/gopten.html Now the point here isn't to convince you that you should avoid drugs (or salt, etc.) at any cost, but to remind you that there are *always* risks when taking any kind of drug (risks the doctor will rarely be aware of), and that they should only be contemplated after considering diet, nutritional, and lifestyle changes. The comments make for an interesting read, too. Low-carb diets (and subsequent weight loss) helped several commenters get off BP meds entirely. Other diets can probably work, too, provided substantial weight loss is achieved. And exercise obviously helps, too. LC diet and subsequent may be OK for mild hypertension but it will be nowhere near sufficient for high BP. If you have a BP of 280/160 you will need a lot of drugs. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
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. One in 32 dead or crippled for life doesn't seem slim to me. As for the side effects of medication, there is a wide array of blood pressure medication available today. Millions of people are on them without suffering from side effects. If they can't tolerate one, there are plenty of others to choose from. Just listing all the possible side effects from any medication is nothing but scare tactics. Look at the list of possible side effects of even the safest drugs and it's scary. And the probability of side effects probably corelates to the benefit. 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. |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
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! Gosh, but I'd love to see your credentials matched up against his: http://www.drbriffa.com/about-2/ 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? 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. 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. It would be like having the engine warning light in your car come on and then just turning it off (which is something I can easily see you doing, or just popping another pill!). Voila! No more engine problem, right? Well, whatever it was that caused that light to come on in the first place hasn't actually been dealt with, has it? And what may happen next? Total engine failure, that's what. Moron. So for those non-morons out there, listen to the advice of Dr. Briffa, and before you resort to drugs, give diet (especially low-carb), nutrition, and lifestyle change a chance to rid yourself of hypertension. Then if you still want to take drugs, take them. It's your life. PS: I also observed this in the Comments section of Dr. Briffa's article: Underlying this discussion is what is the cause the major of hypertension cases in the first place – and why are we seeing so much of it today? The 800-pound gorilla in the in the living room is our modern high carb diet. As I explain in my newest (soon-to-be-published book, Healing Your Hypertension): While everyone has been focused on accusing obesity, stress, dietary fat, and excess salt as the culprits responsible for today’s epidemic of hypertension and other cardiovascular problems, the real troublemaker has gone unnoticed by Big Medicine. This is truly mind-boggling because researchers as far back as the 1860s had identified this obvious risk factor and written it into the medical literature. How and why it doesn’t appear on modern medicine’s radar screen today is one of the most disturbing mysteries of the modern era. But the evidence is very strong indeed pointing to this single cause as being responsible for the 90 percent of hypertension which doctors maintain “has no known cause.” Much recognition and gratitude is due author Gary Taubes for tracking it down and bringing it to the public’s attention in his book, Good Calories, Bad Calories. His account reads like a spellbinding detective novel, and as such, it follows the evidence and takes care to question every unsubstantiated assumption. His research is thorough and convincing, making it all but impossible for any open-minded reader or investigator to doubt his ultimate conclusion: That something in modern diet other than fat or sodium is responsible for today’s high rates of hypertension and cardiovascular disease. And that something is the refined carbohydrate. In his book, Taubes points to early scientific evidence that carbohydrate-rich diets raise blood pressure by causing the body to retain water, just as salt consumption is supposed to do. This was first noted by the German chemist Carl von Voit in 1860. It was corroborated in 1919 by Francis Benedict, director of the Nutrition Laboratory of the Carnegie Institute of Washington, who described the phenomenon this way: “With diets predominantly carbohydrate, there is a strong tendency for the body to retain water, while with diets predominantly fat there is a distinct tendency for the body to lose water.” Benedict was referring to the weight loss which occurs in the first few weeks of any diet that restricts either calories or carbohydrates (especially the latter). This initial weight is mostly water, not body fat, as many veteran dieters know. What is less well-known is that a corresponding effect of this water loss is a lowering of blood pressure. Consuming a carbohydrate-rich diet causes the kidneys to hold on to salt that is already in the body, rather than to excrete it. In reaction to this, the body retains water to maintain the sodium concentration of the blood. This is the same result (water retention) that occurs when we consume more sodium. “Removing carbohydrates from the diet works, in effect, just like the antihypertensive drugs known as diuretics, which cause the kidneys to excrete sodium, and water along with it,” early researchers noted. In fact, this drop in blood pressure is so considerable that it led critics of low-carbohydrate diets to worry publicly about the “low blood pressure resulting from … losses of … fluid, sodium, and other minerals.” By the early 1970s, researchers concluded that this water-retaining effect of carbohydrates was due to the insulin that they stimulated the pancreas to secrete. This in turn forced the kidneys to re-absorb sodium rather than excrete it. (This made sense because insulin levels are generally higher in people with hypertension than in normal individuals.) So widely accepted was this notion that by the mid-1900s, diabetes textbooks were discussing the likelihood that chronically-elevated levels of insulin were causing hypertension in Type 2 patients. Unfortunately, no one considered this might also be true for non-diabetics. Today, it is a well-demonstrated phenomenon that a low-carbohydrate diet causes the excretion of water (causing a reduction in blood pressure), and conversely, that carbohydrate consumption leads to retention of both salt and water (which elevates blood pressure). Therefore, it is ironic that doctors advise overweight hypertensives to lose weight in order to reduce their blood pressure by adopting the standard low-fat, high-carb diet. This is self-defeating, not only because low-fat diets have been shown to be effective ways to lose weight, but also because consuming more carbohydrates will cause water retention and an elevation of blood pressure. Carbohydrate-rich diets also stimulate chronically high insulin levels (because insulin is needed to clear the bloodstream of the glucose that carbohydrates break down to in the digestion process; so the more carbohydrates that are consumed, the more insulin is required) — and insulin has a very direct influence on raising blood pressure. Harvard researchers found that it stimulates the nervous system with the same “flight-or-fight” response triggered by adrenaline, thus increasing the heart rate and constricting blood vessels, resulting in an increase in blood pressure. “The higher the insulin level, the greater the stimulation of the nervous system,” the researchers discovered. “And if insulin levels remain high, the result would be constantly elevated blood pressure.” This is one reason hypertension appears so frequently with diabetes. But it should be remembered that high-carb diets (which featured consumption of sugar and refined carbohydrate foods, such as bread, baked goods, snack foods, and sodas) also stimulate elevated levels of insulin even in people without diabetes. Furthermore, these early researchers found that elevated insulin levels cause hypertension, independent of any of the risk factors. How effectively your body uses insulin is directly related to your risk of developing high blood pressure, reported researchers from Wake Forest University Baptist Medical Center. “We found you can predict who’s at higher risk for developing high blood pressure based on their insulin resistance,” said David Goff Jr., Ph.D., M.D., the lead researcher for the Insulin Resistance Atherosclerosis Study (IRAS) conducted in 2000. Numerous other studies, before and since IRAS, have confirmed this connection. When Dr. Goff’s study began, all 809 middle-age adults had normal blood pressure and varying levels of resistance to insulin. Five years later, researchers found that participants who were most resistant to insulin had a higher incidence of high blood pressure. “The one-third of participants with the highest levels of insulin resistance had rates of hypertension that were 35 percent higher than the one-third with the least resistance,” said Dr. Goff. “These findings point out that reducing the body’s resistance to insulin may help prevent hypertension and cardiovascular disease.” Sugar and hypertension. Excess sugar consumption in hypertension go hand-in-hand, and the number one culprit is sodas and sweetened beverages. Researchers tracked the diets of nearly 2,700 people and found that those who drank sugar-sweetened beverages had higher blood pressures—both systolic and diastolic numbers. The highest blood pressure levels occurred in those who consumed the most fructose and glucose, which are both found in HFCS. Another study examined the nutritional data of 4,500 people, none of whom had hypertension. But after consuming 74 grams of HFCS a day (the equivalent of two and a half cans of soda), they had a 77 percent greater risk of having blood pressure level of 160/100 or higher. And the negative affect that sweets have on blood pressure happens rather quickly. One study found that men eating a high-fructose diet began to see their blood pressure numbers rise after just two weeks. Since the average annual soda consumption in the US is about two cans per person per day, according to the National Soft Drink Association, this means that vast majority of hypertension in a country could be eliminated if people simply swore off soda (and beer). HFCS and hypertension. Studies conducted by Dr. Richard Johnson, professor of medicine at the University of Colorado, where he runs the kidney division and is charge of blood pressure research reveals that HFCS (and all sugars, in general) breaks down into uric acid, a harmful waste product, immediately after ingestion. Elevated levels of uric acid are usually associated with gout, but it also is recorded in people with hypertension and kidney disease. Uric acid drives up blood pressure by inhibiting nitric oxide in your blood vessels. Nitric oxide helps blood vessels maintain their elasticity and facilitates their expansion (dilation). Thus, suppression of nitric oxide by HFCS consumption leads to increases in blood pressure. This is confirmed by 17 studies which demonstrate that elevated uric acid levels lead to hypertension. Too much uric acid is also is a factor in kidney disease, insulin resistance and diabetes, obesity, fatty liver disease, elevated triglycerides and LDL, and cardiovascular disease. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
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. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 07:58:25 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: [...] 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. There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH. By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first. See: Darwin. 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. Exactly! Not to mention: "I suppose it should be borne in mind that the authors of the meta-analysis are Professors Malcolm Law and Nicholas Wald, who own patents for a multi-medication pill (the ‘polypill’) that includes (perhaps predictably) antihypertensives." What a coincidence! 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. To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is "nonsense"? What a bozo you are. 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. That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying! That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying! Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the drug train! Turning out the blinking engine light isn't a very good idea. First, find out what's causing it to blink. 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? Then they can make up their own minds, just like I said! Just like Dr. Briffa said. You seem to think anything can be treated without drugs. I don't know where you get that impression. Besides the fact that you're just a stupid man, I mean. I said to try other things first, then make up your mind, after considering the risk factors, etc. On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer! Which drug company do you work for? Pfizer? AstraZeneca? What? Moron. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote:
There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH. As usual, you're wandering of course here and trying to confuse the issue. Of course there is no guarantee that any particular group of 32 men is going to experience the benefit, ie avoiding a stroke. It's statistically expected, but there is no guarantee for a particular group of 32. One sample of 32 could have no reduction in strokes, another sample of 32 could have two less strokes. Together it averages out to one less in 32. If we have a group of 32,000 we'd expect 1,000 less strokes. So, what's your point? The issue is the doctor says that 1 less stroke in 32 men over 5 years is slim. You apparently agree with that. I say it's a huge benefit. That was the issue. By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first. There you go again. I never said anything about not trying anything else first. It's always better to avoid drugs if possible. 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. To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is "nonsense"? It is when you blow them all out of proportion and capitalize the word DEATH. BP medications are widely used and well tolerated. 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. That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying! That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying! Again, you seem to have a problem here. This has happened many times now. I take issue with one specific part of something that some "expert" has said. You then somehow try to twist that into something totally different. In this case, I specifically stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years is a slim benefit. I think that's a huge benefit. Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure first by losing weight, exercise, etc. Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the drug train! Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice. How well is that working in practice? On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer! Which drug company do you work for? *Pfizer? *AstraZeneca? What? Moron. Yes, very typical. Anyone who has information that doesn't jive with your little world must be working for someone, getting paid, a shill, etc. On the other hand, you and your sources could never have any such motives, right? Let's start with Dr. Briffa. Speaking of lucrative businesses, does he not get paid for the books he writes? |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote: There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH. As usual, you're wandering of course here and trying to confuse the issue. Actually, I'm just trying to illustrate all the facts that you're trying to suppress, or minimize. By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first. There you go again. I never said anything about not trying anything else first. Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again??? Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is saying! Along with many other doctors and scientists. 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. To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is "nonsense"? It is when you blow them all out of proportion and capitalize the word DEATH. I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and all drugs have them!). And the word DEATH should get even your attention. Nah, probably not. 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. That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying! That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying! Again, you seem to have a problem here. This has happened many times now. I take issue with one specific part of something that some "expert" has said. You then somehow try to twist that into something totally different. In this case, I specifically stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years is a slim benefit. I think that's a huge benefit. Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of life-long, debilitating effects. And only some moron like you would call them "idiots." Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure first by losing weight, exercise, etc. That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have been no need to reply. QED. Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the drug train! Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice. Good! That's progress! How well is that working in practice? How well does anyone know without trying it? But I think it works well for the vast majority of people who try it, and then stick to it. Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing to worry about. If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you necessarily want to lower it in the first place, especially after considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other life-long debilitating effects? Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal life-spans. On the other hand, you seem to think that drugs are always the answer! Which drug company do you work for? *Pfizer? *AstraZeneca? What? Moron. On the other hand, you and your sources could never have any such motives, right? Of course they can! That's why The Scientific Method is so important! Let's start with Dr. Briffa. Speaking of lucrative businesses, does he not get paid for the books he writes? Presumably, but he doesn't have a book regarding hypertension. And his opinions are supported by The Scientific Method. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On Jun 12, 2:23*pm, Dogman wrote:
On Tue, 12 Jun 2012 10:22:39 -0700 (PDT), " wrote: On Jun 12, 12:19*pm, Dogman wrote: There's no guarantee that any other cohort of 32 men would even experience that "slim benefit," and you're totally ignoring the many risk factors from taking these drugs, which include DEATH. As usual, you're wandering of course here and trying to confuse the issue. Actually, I'm just trying to illustrate all the facts that you're trying to suppress, or minimize. By all means, if you think these are good odds, then just automatically take the drugs. Don't try anything else first. There you go again. *I never said anything about not trying anything else first. Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again??? Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is saying! One more time. Dr. Briffa did an analysis where he claimed that you have to treat 32 men in order to avoid one stroke in 5 years. He then called the benefit of avoiding one stroke in 5 years a "slim benefit". I think anyone that says avoiding one stroke in 32 men over a 5 year period is a "slim benefit", is shockingly off target. So. I think anyone evaluating what else this guy has to say should take that into consideration. Ask yourself this simple question: Do I want to be listening to a doctor that says avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is a slim benefit? I sure wouldn't take anything else he says seriously, because the above is a very, very strange viewpoint. Along with many other doctors and scientists. 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. To mention the many risk factors from taking these drugs is "nonsense"? It is when you blow them all out of proportion and capitalize the word DEATH. I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and all drugs have them!). And the word DEATH should get even your attention. Nah, probably not. It's rather amazing. Using the doctors own numbers, avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is a slim benefit. But we're supposed to get all worked up over DEATH as a possible side effect of a blood pressure medication? What do you think the death rate among those 32 men from that stroke is? I guarantee you it's orders of magnitude higher than the risk of death from a blood pressure medication. BP medications are among the most widely used, well tolerated medicines out there. And they have been proven to work very well. They've even been proven to work by the doctor's own data. Yet he calls avoiding one stroke in 32 men in 5 years a "slim benefit". And the BP medicines that are going to have the most side effects are also likely the ones that are needed by patients with very high blood pressure. That is when your BP is 200+, you may need the ones with more serious side effects, but at the same time, your risk of stroke, heart attack, death, etc from the high BP is still orders of magnitude greater. 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. That's exactly what you're doing, because that's all I'm saying! That's all that Dr. Briffa is saying! Again, you seem to have a problem here. *This has happened many times now. *I take issue with one specific part of something that some "expert" has said. * You then somehow try to twist that into something totally different. *In this case, I specifically stated that IMO, Dr. Briffa is an idiot because he thinks avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years is a slim benefit. *I think that's a huge benefit. Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of life-long, debilitating effects. The side effect of most drugs includes possible death. So what? It occurs in such a tiny percentage that compared to the benefit, the benefit is worth it. Except of course to those that think avoiding one stroke in 32 men over 5 years is a "slim benefit". And only some moron like you would call them "idiots." Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure first by losing weight, exercise, etc. That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have been no need to reply. QED. You clearly have a problem with anyone who makes any kind of comment regarding even a part of the stuff you post. All I pointed out was that the doctor considers preventing one stroke among a group of 32 patients a slim benefit. Try diet, try nutrition, try lifestyle changes, before getting on the drug train! Great idea and everyone agrees it's good advice. Good! *That's progress! How well is that working in practice? How well does anyone know without trying it? Lame. It's being tried all the time. But I think it works well for the vast majority of people who try it, and then stick to it. That's a big help. And how about the fact that it's been shown that the vast majority of people can't stick with any diet or significant lifestyle changes? Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing to worry about. I'm sure we'd all like to see the study that supports that conclusion. If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you necessarily want to lower it in the first place, Study please to show that this pure speculation exists. Otherwise, it's just a strawman. especially after considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other life-long debilitating effects? Do you realize that if you have a headache and take some aspirin there is a risk of DEATH? Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal life-spans. Study please. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
And since we were on the subject of hypertension...
On Wed, 13 Jun 2012 07:49:09 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote: There you go again. *I never said anything about not trying anything else first. Then why are you gnawing on my ankles again??? Because that's all I'm saying here, and that's all Dr. Briffa is saying! One more time. Dr. Briffa did an analysis where he claimed that you have to treat 32 men in order to avoid one stroke in 5 years. He then called the benefit of avoiding one stroke in 5 years a "slim benefit". And that's what it is, for the very reasons I've already explained. And we can keep doing this as many times as you want. I'm game bred. I'm not blowing them out of proportion, I'm just restoring them to their rightful place. Only morons ignore side effects of drugs (and all drugs have them!). And the word DEATH should get even your attention. Nah, probably not. It's rather amazing. Using the doctors own numbers, avoiding one stroke among 32 men in 5 years is a slim benefit. But we're supposed to get all worked up over DEATH as a possible side effect of a blood pressure medication? Considering that the benefits of taking the pills are statistically "slim," you should be concerned, yes. Only morons get "all worked up." Most people wouldn't think it's a "huge benefit" if the side effects of taking the drugs can also result in DEATH, among a long list of life-long, debilitating effects. The side effect of most drugs includes possible death. Exactly. And that's why they should always be the last resort. But even the other side effects from taking BP meds are nothing to sniff at, e.g., impotence, dizziness, low blood sugar, muscle cramps, constipation, headaches, bleeding gums, etc. - for essentially the rest of one's life. And only some moron like you would call them "idiots." Now, instead of staying on the point, you claim I'm advocating people not try to lower their blood pressure first by losing weight, exercise, etc. That's pretty much what you were doing, otherwise there would have been no need to reply. QED. You clearly have a problem with anyone who makes any kind of comment regarding even a part of the stuff you post. The only reason you're even commenting on this post is because we despise each other. And you see it as your job to harass me about anything I post here. Well, good luck with that, asshole! Hypertension can also run in families, and may be absolutely nothing to worry about. I'm sure we'd all like to see the study that supports that conclusion. You can look it up. Well, maybe you can't, but anyone else can. If everyone in a family has elevated BP, but live average lives, don't have strokes or heart attacks, why would you necessarily want to lower it in the first place, Study please to show that this pure speculation exists. Otherwise, it's just a strawman. You can look it up. You probably should look up the term "straw man" too, because you obviously don't know what that means. especially after considering that artificailly doing so may cause DEATH and other life-long debilitating effects? Do you realize that if you have a headache and take some aspirin there is a risk of DEATH? I'm not aware of it ever happening, but I suppose it's possible. Anything is possible. Some families have abnormally high (or extremely low) levels of cholesterol, too, but most of them lead normal lives, with normal life-spans. Study please. Oh please. Look it up for yourself. It's easy to do. Asshole. -- Dogman "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything" - Richard Feynman |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
no subject | admin | General Discussion | 0 | October 25th, 2005 12:53 PM |
On the subject of pedometers | Dan | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 1 | January 31st, 2005 11:08 PM |
Nasty Subject - read with care | Rachael Reynolds | General Discussion | 4 | November 21st, 2004 03:23 AM |
Hmmm--Subject?? Not really new here but should be... | Jennifer Foth | Low Carbohydrate Diets | 16 | July 7th, 2004 08:00 PM |
Off subject. For Lesanne | Coq | Weightwatchers | 1 | December 14th, 2003 04:18 PM |