Hypertension studies... not really that "DRAMATIC"
There seems to be this looming black cloud over everything I read about high blood pressure... im beginning to think more for myself and not be skewed so much by studies paid for primarily by pharmaceutical companies.
Many of the studies I have seen show reductions in all-cause mortality and cardiovascular complications by about 40%, the incidence of heart attack is even less at 25%. This is WITH treatment. Even if lets say all-cause mortality was reduced by 80% the benefits remain fairly vague.
Let's say 15/500 men on treatment for hypertension died of cardiovascular disease, without hypertensive treatment that risk would climb to a whopping "wait for it" 19/500 men who died of cardiovascular disease. What we are doing here is essentially treating something that is already of infitesimal risk to begin with. Yes hypertension isn't good for you, yes we should definitely treat it.
Even if the risk was 100% greater for people not taking any drugs whatsoever well then we would have 18/500 dying instead of 9/500 again, is a lifetime of side-effects really worth it?
But can we at least partially agree that many of these studies are skewed and use words like "Dramatic" and "Substantial" to describe reducing an already fairly low risk without other risk factors?
Just food for thought.
Last edited by dantescritic; 04-16-2012 at 05:34 PM.