Interesting, if disturbing news if true.

Time magazine (Feb.2) ran a large 2 page ad from AstraZenica with an interesting "chances of a heart attack for women in 10 years" questionnaire...I imagine also pretty appplicable to men. Risk runs from <1% to >30%.
Basically it's add points for risk factors like AGE, total cholesterol, systolic blood pressure, HDL cholesterol and smoking. (The only minuses are age: 20-34 and HDL of 60+ [I missed #1 by a mile and #2 by one point. :( ]

OK, now the on-topic import:
the Systolic Blood Pressure is divided into 2 groups, TREATED and UNTREATED. Best you can do is zero with systolic of <120 in either group.

BUT: Treated group adds 3 points for 120-129. Untreated doesn't climb to 3 points til 140-159.

Conclusion: With a BP of 159, it is a waste of money [and side effects] to begin treatment unless you can get BELOW 120 systolic. AND if you can only drop to 130 you actually ADD another risk point [+4].

If true, this has DRASTIC ramifications.

Any thoughts?

Zip- Am going to buy TIME just to take a look at this test. Something's REALLY "off" here, since it's not in AstraZeneca's best interests to publish a questionaire that would even hint at, suggest, or conclude that doctors/and or patients pre-empt medication under the circumstances you mention. Of course, that's not their intention and if your conclusions are correct, do they think we won't "notice"?

You've got me really going here!

Get back to you later,
zuzu xxx