A dog & canine forum. DogBanter

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.

Go Back   Home » DogBanter forum » Dog forums » Dog behavior
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

OT Anyone who was interested in the recent cholesterol/statin drugthread might be interested in this site, too



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old September 29th 04, 02:40 AM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default OT Anyone who was interested in the recent cholesterol/statin drugthread might be interested in this site, too

Thanks. That's for cholesterol. What are your thoughts on blood
pressure lowering drugs or the whole business about testing for blood
pressure?

--Lia


Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

http://www.redflagsweekly.com/heart_...rol_drugs.html


  #2  
Old September 29th 04, 03:32 AM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Surely the medical establishment is familiar with dangerously low blood
pressure (Dad) and dangerously high blood pressure (Mom). I'm trying to
find reasons and common sense between the two. Dad's getting more tests
tomorrow to try to find the source of the internal bleeding. The
transfusion helped a lot, but there has to be a slow leak. Mom's
probably anxious about Dad.


While I don't doubt that there are unscupulous drug companies out there,
I'm also convinced that there is some good in pharmaceutical and medical
professions. (We've had that discussion before, haven't we?) So while
there may be one company that's arbitrarily playing with the numbers to
sell more drugs, that doesn't negate the reality of blood pressure being
a useful indicator of likelihood of heart attack. Or does it?


--Lia


Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:


I think it's going the way of statin drugs for cholesterol -- *way*
over prescribed, etc.

When they recently (and arbitrarily) changed the BP recommendations to
anything over 120/70 now constituting "pre-hypertension," they pretty
much expanded the MARKET for BP-lowering drugs by several magnitudes.

They'll be putting it in cereal before long.

As one of those referenced articles said:

"There is a company which makes billions of dollars each year selling
drugs that lower the blood pressure and the cholesterol levels of
millions of people. This company now promotes the doctrine that there
is no such thing as a cholesterol level, or a blood pressure level,
that can be too low. Whatever the level, lower it. For these two risk
factors are major killers and they must be hunted down and beaten with
a big club..."

I think it qualifies as madness, Lia.


  #3  
Old September 29th 04, 03:32 AM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Surely the medical establishment is familiar with dangerously low blood
pressure (Dad) and dangerously high blood pressure (Mom). I'm trying to
find reasons and common sense between the two. Dad's getting more tests
tomorrow to try to find the source of the internal bleeding. The
transfusion helped a lot, but there has to be a slow leak. Mom's
probably anxious about Dad.


While I don't doubt that there are unscupulous drug companies out there,
I'm also convinced that there is some good in pharmaceutical and medical
professions. (We've had that discussion before, haven't we?) So while
there may be one company that's arbitrarily playing with the numbers to
sell more drugs, that doesn't negate the reality of blood pressure being
a useful indicator of likelihood of heart attack. Or does it?


--Lia


Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:


I think it's going the way of statin drugs for cholesterol -- *way*
over prescribed, etc.

When they recently (and arbitrarily) changed the BP recommendations to
anything over 120/70 now constituting "pre-hypertension," they pretty
much expanded the MARKET for BP-lowering drugs by several magnitudes.

They'll be putting it in cereal before long.

As one of those referenced articles said:

"There is a company which makes billions of dollars each year selling
drugs that lower the blood pressure and the cholesterol levels of
millions of people. This company now promotes the doctrine that there
is no such thing as a cholesterol level, or a blood pressure level,
that can be too low. Whatever the level, lower it. For these two risk
factors are major killers and they must be hunted down and beaten with
a big club..."

I think it qualifies as madness, Lia.


  #4  
Old September 29th 04, 03:32 AM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Surely the medical establishment is familiar with dangerously low blood
pressure (Dad) and dangerously high blood pressure (Mom). I'm trying to
find reasons and common sense between the two. Dad's getting more tests
tomorrow to try to find the source of the internal bleeding. The
transfusion helped a lot, but there has to be a slow leak. Mom's
probably anxious about Dad.


While I don't doubt that there are unscupulous drug companies out there,
I'm also convinced that there is some good in pharmaceutical and medical
professions. (We've had that discussion before, haven't we?) So while
there may be one company that's arbitrarily playing with the numbers to
sell more drugs, that doesn't negate the reality of blood pressure being
a useful indicator of likelihood of heart attack. Or does it?


--Lia


Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:


I think it's going the way of statin drugs for cholesterol -- *way*
over prescribed, etc.

When they recently (and arbitrarily) changed the BP recommendations to
anything over 120/70 now constituting "pre-hypertension," they pretty
much expanded the MARKET for BP-lowering drugs by several magnitudes.

They'll be putting it in cereal before long.

As one of those referenced articles said:

"There is a company which makes billions of dollars each year selling
drugs that lower the blood pressure and the cholesterol levels of
millions of people. This company now promotes the doctrine that there
is no such thing as a cholesterol level, or a blood pressure level,
that can be too low. Whatever the level, lower it. For these two risk
factors are major killers and they must be hunted down and beaten with
a big club..."

I think it qualifies as madness, Lia.


  #5  
Old September 29th 04, 03:32 AM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Surely the medical establishment is familiar with dangerously low blood
pressure (Dad) and dangerously high blood pressure (Mom). I'm trying to
find reasons and common sense between the two. Dad's getting more tests
tomorrow to try to find the source of the internal bleeding. The
transfusion helped a lot, but there has to be a slow leak. Mom's
probably anxious about Dad.


While I don't doubt that there are unscupulous drug companies out there,
I'm also convinced that there is some good in pharmaceutical and medical
professions. (We've had that discussion before, haven't we?) So while
there may be one company that's arbitrarily playing with the numbers to
sell more drugs, that doesn't negate the reality of blood pressure being
a useful indicator of likelihood of heart attack. Or does it?


--Lia


Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:


I think it's going the way of statin drugs for cholesterol -- *way*
over prescribed, etc.

When they recently (and arbitrarily) changed the BP recommendations to
anything over 120/70 now constituting "pre-hypertension," they pretty
much expanded the MARKET for BP-lowering drugs by several magnitudes.

They'll be putting it in cereal before long.

As one of those referenced articles said:

"There is a company which makes billions of dollars each year selling
drugs that lower the blood pressure and the cholesterol levels of
millions of people. This company now promotes the doctrine that there
is no such thing as a cholesterol level, or a blood pressure level,
that can be too low. Whatever the level, lower it. For these two risk
factors are major killers and they must be hunted down and beaten with
a big club..."

I think it qualifies as madness, Lia.


  #6  
Old September 29th 04, 02:29 PM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

Striving to
get everyone with a BP higher than 120/80 to automatically start
taking drugs with the potential for some really *serious* side
effects, based on an arbitrarily derived cut-off point (that isn't
backed by even one properly conducted field trial), is, IMO,
unconscionable, not to mention highly dangerous.



Let's steer the conversation away from corporation motivations and
profits and back to the science itself. What would be a more realistic
definition of high blood pressure that should have drugs prescribed to
bring it down? How could that be determined for the individual? What
are the serious side effects of the drugs and how do they stack up
against the possibility of heart attack?


While I have reason not to trust the big faceless corporations, I do
have a certain amount of trust for my mother's doctors who have long
histories of being reluctant to prescribe anything when nothing would do
just as well. One of these doctors came down with a terrible flu and
refused so much as an aspirin for himself with the conviction "what you
don't take won't hurt you." This philosophy goes back 20 years at least
and probably longer. The other doctor is similarly reluctant to
prescribe and a cardiologist. And they're outside the HMO system as
regards this particular patient. They have no motivation to put their
sister and aunt on more drugs than she needs.


Still, I worry about Mom's blood pressure.


--Lia

  #7  
Old September 29th 04, 02:29 PM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

Striving to
get everyone with a BP higher than 120/80 to automatically start
taking drugs with the potential for some really *serious* side
effects, based on an arbitrarily derived cut-off point (that isn't
backed by even one properly conducted field trial), is, IMO,
unconscionable, not to mention highly dangerous.



Let's steer the conversation away from corporation motivations and
profits and back to the science itself. What would be a more realistic
definition of high blood pressure that should have drugs prescribed to
bring it down? How could that be determined for the individual? What
are the serious side effects of the drugs and how do they stack up
against the possibility of heart attack?


While I have reason not to trust the big faceless corporations, I do
have a certain amount of trust for my mother's doctors who have long
histories of being reluctant to prescribe anything when nothing would do
just as well. One of these doctors came down with a terrible flu and
refused so much as an aspirin for himself with the conviction "what you
don't take won't hurt you." This philosophy goes back 20 years at least
and probably longer. The other doctor is similarly reluctant to
prescribe and a cardiologist. And they're outside the HMO system as
regards this particular patient. They have no motivation to put their
sister and aunt on more drugs than she needs.


Still, I worry about Mom's blood pressure.


--Lia

  #8  
Old September 29th 04, 02:29 PM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

Striving to
get everyone with a BP higher than 120/80 to automatically start
taking drugs with the potential for some really *serious* side
effects, based on an arbitrarily derived cut-off point (that isn't
backed by even one properly conducted field trial), is, IMO,
unconscionable, not to mention highly dangerous.



Let's steer the conversation away from corporation motivations and
profits and back to the science itself. What would be a more realistic
definition of high blood pressure that should have drugs prescribed to
bring it down? How could that be determined for the individual? What
are the serious side effects of the drugs and how do they stack up
against the possibility of heart attack?


While I have reason not to trust the big faceless corporations, I do
have a certain amount of trust for my mother's doctors who have long
histories of being reluctant to prescribe anything when nothing would do
just as well. One of these doctors came down with a terrible flu and
refused so much as an aspirin for himself with the conviction "what you
don't take won't hurt you." This philosophy goes back 20 years at least
and probably longer. The other doctor is similarly reluctant to
prescribe and a cardiologist. And they're outside the HMO system as
regards this particular patient. They have no motivation to put their
sister and aunt on more drugs than she needs.


Still, I worry about Mom's blood pressure.


--Lia

  #9  
Old September 29th 04, 02:29 PM
Julia Altshuler
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote:

Striving to
get everyone with a BP higher than 120/80 to automatically start
taking drugs with the potential for some really *serious* side
effects, based on an arbitrarily derived cut-off point (that isn't
backed by even one properly conducted field trial), is, IMO,
unconscionable, not to mention highly dangerous.



Let's steer the conversation away from corporation motivations and
profits and back to the science itself. What would be a more realistic
definition of high blood pressure that should have drugs prescribed to
bring it down? How could that be determined for the individual? What
are the serious side effects of the drugs and how do they stack up
against the possibility of heart attack?


While I have reason not to trust the big faceless corporations, I do
have a certain amount of trust for my mother's doctors who have long
histories of being reluctant to prescribe anything when nothing would do
just as well. One of these doctors came down with a terrible flu and
refused so much as an aspirin for himself with the conviction "what you
don't take won't hurt you." This philosophy goes back 20 years at least
and probably longer. The other doctor is similarly reluctant to
prescribe and a cardiologist. And they're outside the HMO system as
regards this particular patient. They have no motivation to put their
sister and aunt on more drugs than she needs.


Still, I worry about Mom's blood pressure.


--Lia

  #10  
Old September 29th 04, 03:10 PM
KWBrown
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Handsome Jack Morrison wrote in
:

Striving to
get everyone with a BP higher than 120/80 to automatically start
taking drugs with the potential for some really *serious* side
effects, based on an arbitrarily derived cut-off point (that isn't
backed by even one properly conducted field trial)...


Taking this sentence and blending it with my knowledge of your dog-sport
interests left me imagining dogs running around with bottles of
prescription medication that had been hidden from them 300 yards away in a
swamp...chortle

--
Kate
and Storm the FCR
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.2.0 (Unauthorized Upgrade)
Copyright ©2004-2024 DogBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.