CPAPtalk.com

HBP definitely does cause strokes--hemorrhagic strokes.

chunkyfrog wrote:HBP definitely does cause strokes--hemorrhagic strokes.

No evidence!!!!!!!!!!! zip...

Pesser wrote:Just out of curiosity, have any of you checked out the statistical mess regarding high blood pressure medication. That’s a real riot. There has never been any study that shows that high blood pressure can cause heart attacks. There are using relative risk. When the same studies are subjected to absolute risk the “risk” disappears.

Yeah, it's kind of the same thing--and now they are treating "pre-hypertension".

I got so frustrated with Kaiser. All the medical assistants hook you up to an electronic BP cuff and leave you with your arm dangling. That increases the pressure by 10 to 15 mm Hg. Then the medical assistant says "you have high blood pressure, you need to go to the blood pressure clinic GROUP where you can lounge back and listen to soft music before they take your BP". Then the doctor tells me that they want to prescribe BP medicine.

I'm NOT hypertensive. I have a good cuff at home, and I run low BP almost all the time. On BP meds I'd be passing out. I do have a little bit of white coat hypertension which got worse when I got pissed at their poor skills. So I don't allow them to take my BP any more, I simply refuse. I tell them that if the doctor wants to take it, PROPERLY and with a manual cuff, when I'm sitting comfortably then we'll see. But if they can't even take it correctly, I'm not going to allow the medical assistant to peg me with an incorrect diagnosis.

And I love it when they tell me to be careful about salt. There's good data now that reducing salt reduces systolic BP by a whopping THREE mm Hg. And I don't eat processed foods, so I get very little salt to begin with--I have to make an effort to make sure I get ENOUGH salt.

Kaiser even tried to claim my 23 year old daughter was hypertensive. But she's my daughter. She said "No, take it again after I've been seated comfortably in a chair with my back and feet supported, with a manual cuff, and make sure that my arm is not below the level of my heart". Surprise--her BP was very much on the low side when taken correctly.

Significant hypertension should absolutely be addressed--though it's usually related to water retention from the liver and kidneys working overtime to try to deal with high blood glucose and insulin levels, not a lack of diuretic medications.

It seems logical that HPB could lead to stroke. Water pressure and hose analogy.

So here's a study that says if you have to take 3 meds to normalize blood pressure, the risk of stroke is 2.5 times greater, even after BP has been normalized, than that of those that don't require meds. Maybe they're not treating the right thing? The authors wouldn't and don't come to that conclusion, but...?

Kind of like, it seems logical that an increase in dietary cholesterol leads to an increase in serum cholesterol?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 193554.htm

Jay Aitchsee wrote:It seems logical that HPB could lead to stroke. Water pressure and hose analogy.

So here's a study that says if you have to take 3 meds to normalize blood pressure, the risk of stroke is 2.5 times greater, even after BP has been normalized, than that of those that don't require meds. Maybe they're not treating the right thing? The authors wouldn't and don't come to that conclusion, but...?

Kind of like, it seems logical that an increase in dietary cholesterol leads to an increase in serum cholesterol?

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2 ... 193554.htm

Modern western medicine goes by the "there's a pill for every ill" theory. They treat symptoms, not causes. A growing body of MD's and DO's are becoming dissatisfied with that approach, that's why many are turning to functional and integrative medicine. That's the type of practitioner I'm most comfortable with now. I was able to find a doctor in the Kaiser system who has integrative medicine training. She's still got to follow Kaiser protocols, but can speak intelligently to me about the options and will work with me as much as she's permitted to outside the Kaiser box.

Not trying to stir up anything.....came here for something else. But there's recent work about the positive benefits of statins on cancers.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... ancer.html

JaxTom wrote:Not trying to stir up anything.....came here for something else. But there's recent work about the positive benefits of statins on cancers.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/health/ ... ancer.html

If this were true, we should have seen a reduction in cancer, considering how widely statins are prescribed. We have seen no such decrease. Not buying it.

It's another example of "reduces the odd of" without telling us what the odds are to begin with. Or, that these are not "cause and effect", but only associations.

The study referred to by the Telegraph says that statins reduce the odd of dying of prostate cancer by 40%.

This study, http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Ne ... id/708266/, found "that regular aspirin intake after prostate cancer diagnosis decreased the risk of prostate cancer death by almost 40 percent,"

No problem, take an aspirin and statin and reduce the risk of dying of prostate cancer by 80%

Jay Aitchsee wrote:It's another example of "reduces the odd of" without telling us what the odds are to begin with. Or, that these are not "cause and effect", but only associations.

The study referred to by the Telegraph says that statins reduce the odd of dying of prostate cancer by 40%.

This study, http://www.newsmax.com/Health/Health-Ne ... id/708266/, found "that regular aspirin intake after prostate cancer diagnosis decreased the risk of prostate cancer death by almost 40 percent,"

No problem, take an aspirin and statin and reduce the risk of dying of prostate cancer by 80%

I suppose it depends on what study you look at. So far, the only repeated studies that show aspirin reduced cancer rates of any kind were very specific for those who had Lynch Syndrome (cancer gene). That's it. We're talking about cancer returning, not deaths from cancer.

SewTired wrote:I suppose it depends on what study you look at

Exactly.

Some crazy study is being conducted on the use of Statins for learning disabilities. Since many of the individuals with the genetic syndrome that runs in my family have learning disabilities, I hear parents of kids with this syndrome gun ho to try statins for their kids. It drives me nuts! First of all, the only studies have been in mice. And secondly, the studies don't address the side effects at all--NOBODY has any business interfering with the Mevalonate Pathway of growing children without a damn lot of research on safety using ACTUAL numbers. People don't get that statins are not benign and I think they present a grave danger for growing children. Cholesterol is particularly important to a developing brain.

I've also seen suggestions that kids with high cholesterol be put on statins. Terrifying!

Big Pharma suffered another setback with the publication of a large study that compared mortality rates in people over 65 and their LDL cholesterol levels. The study shows that people over 65 live longer with high levels of the so-called "bad cholesterol" than those with low levels of LDL. Take that stupid Crestor commercials!

The first link below takes will take you to a quick summary article, while the second link is directly to the published study.

http://www.naturalnews.com/054388_s...

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/...

sptrout wrote:Big Pharma suffered another setback with the publication of a large study that compared mortality rates in people over 65 and their LDL cholesterol levels. The study shows that people over 65 live longer with high levels of the so-called "bad cholesterol" than those with low levels of LDL. Take that stupid Crestor commercials!

The first link below takes will take you to a quick summary article, while the second link is directly to the published study.

http://www.naturalnews.com/054388_s...

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/...

Neither of those links work for me.

Sorry, not sure why they do not work, they do for me. I was using my tablet before, now using my laptop, maybe with different results; I hope.....at least the links now work for me in the "post preview" mode.

http://www.naturalnews.com/054388_stati ... harma.html

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

Janknitz wrote:http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full

This BMJ article was a review of 19 cohort studies with nearly 70,000 people. It concluded:

Our review provides the first comprehensive analysis of the literature about the association between LDL-C and mortality in the elderly. Since the main goal of prevention of disease is prolongation of life, all-cause mortality is the most important outcome, and is also the most easily defined outcome and least subject to bias. The cholesterol hypothesis predicts that LDL-C will be associated with increased all-cause and CV mortality. Our review has shown either a lack of an association or an inverse association between LDL-C and both all-cause and CV mortality. The cholesterol hypothesis seems to be in conflict with most of Bradford Hill’s criteria for causation, because of its lack of consistency, biological gradient and coherence. Our review provides the basis for more research about the cause of atherosclerosis and CVD and also for a re-evaluation of the guidelines for cardiovascular prevention, in particular because the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated.

An inverse relationship between LDL-C and all cause AND cardiovascular mortality. Think about it.

The question is, Why haven't we seen more widespread reporting of this study referenced by Jan and sptrout in the popular press? When there was a study that seemed to imply that eating "red meat" increased mortality risk, it was the only thing on the TV news for weeks.

But to be fair, here is a criticism of the study:
http://www.cebm.net/cebm-response-lack- ... ation-pee/