Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
compsports

Blood Pressure Statistics/History

Recommended Posts

compsports

As many folks on this board are aware, it used to be acceptable to have higher blood blood pressure numbers before meds were needed.    Supposedly studies showed that this was incorrect and that meds were now required

 

Being the suspicious type, I wonder how valid they were or if this was another case of big pharma looking to expand their market.   Anyone have more information?

 

Sorry, I don't mean to sound like a conspiracy theorist but I know you all will understand.

 

CS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
InvisibleUnless

things like weight, bodyfat composition, and blood pressure have been demonstrated to be particular to genetic populations and lifestyles, and without universal "healthy" target values or corresponding good health accompanying a single category of numbers.  poke around some public scholarly databases and i bet youd hit on some relevant materials.  id post some links if i had some offhand, but those notions are so widely accepted now (relativistically speaking) that i dont keep materials around.

 

with what ive been learning (or finally able to learn??) after quitting all the meds is that its very difficult to be truly conspiratorial in mind when you take into account how winding and winnowing all the 'science' fed to us is.

 

another really important thing is that, as shady and backhanded as medication studies are today, they were possibly even more misleading in the earlier days (like the 40s through the 60s when pop-sci began tackling things like diet and consumer goods for the sake of profiteering).  for instance, all the guidelines used to establish daily dietary values, the studies into how healthy meat-eating is, stuff regarding everything from the safety of microwaves and margarine to chemical exposure tolerances and the value of artificial vitamin fortification.  partly due to ineptitude, partly due to methodology, partly due to scammy coverups.  theres also some competing scientific ideas from that period that got some press back in the day but didnt survive in the mainstream consciousness.

 

part of our problem as information seekers is that a globalized world and economy has meant a pretty sizable reduction in the variety of information, goods, and perspectives offered to us.  and that seems backwards, when you think of never leaving a city in ones whole life versus the possibilities opened to us with the advent of online communication, but you have to consider it from the angle of power consolidation.  the richest have always had the most influence over material matters, like what goods are available and how marketing is done, and global networking means the rich will band together (be it personally, corporately, or governmentally---but usually all three) and create wider ranges of personal and economic influence, as opposed to the everyman having more freedom from the prominent influence of the affluent.

 

philosophical dissent is less tolerated than 100 years ago, and increasing amounts of our information (both factual and expressive) comes from the same payroll of people and organizations.  its like an invisible hegemony because we often still think of things as being more like they were 100-200 years ago...separate companies truly being separate and competitive, or two very different trades not being so financially interdependent that one body of decisionmaking determines how both are run and what services are offered to the consumer.

 

so, what im trying to say is that all institutions are basically just self-justifying their ideas in one giant circle-jerk of perpetual profiteering.  the specific motives and ideas of particular individuals involved, be they scientists or CEOs or doctors, are essentially insignificant in the face of the fact that the system itself is propped up by a bigoted inscrutability.  let them call you a conspiracy theorist, because its clear that they are conspiring, whether its consciously, willingly, or just as dumb sods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
freespirit

Although this is not at all surprising...it is thoroughly disgusting...and makes the case to me for staying away from doctors, who in most cases, are nothing more than glorified drug dealers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast

Just like the statins.

 

Did you get wind of the NEJM series by Lisa Rosenbaum MD? It was blogged right and left.

 

http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1502493(Part 1)

 

The first example she gave was meant in part to reflect badly on the author of a study with findings that didn't fit with the new 2013 guidelines.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
compsports

freespirit - I agree about staying from doctors whenever possible.   Even when they try to give non med advice like about diet, it is totally off.

 

WC - OMG statins are even worse then BP meds according to my research.   Yeah, I saw those article you were referring to.   COI, no big deal.  Yeah right says CS sarcastically.    Sheesh!

 

CS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
westcoast

It's been hilarious to watch. At first the author's Twitter feed was full of fawning posts from other docs. it stayed that way for a few weeks while until the funny BMJ guy -- Leyman? -- weighed in, twice.

 

Once it escaped the ivy-league internist/cardiology crowd it was out of control. It might be legendary...time will tell. It was  manipulative, and not really logical as some bloggers have pointed out. Smug.

 

Here's a fawner from twitter. It's a male MD:

 

 I could spend wks, no, months, responding to @LisaRosenbaum17’s piece @nejm http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMms1502497That’s what makes it so good

 

Take a shower, dude.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
compsports

WC,

 

I guess I should visit Twitter for some entertainment.

 

All sarcasm and jokes aside, I understand that even if COIs were eliminated that there isn't any doctor who is going to be completely biased free as none of us are.   But isn't the goal to minimize it as much as possible to maximize the chances that the medical advice provided meets the needs of patients and not the pocketbook of doctors?  It seems like a simple concept but maybe I am missing something.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use Privacy Policy