This Is How Doctors Improperly and Unnecessarily Label Millions With High Blood Pressure To Prescribe Medication
There are millions of people who are currently being misclassified as having high blood pressure, when in fact findings show that these people are not actually more likely to die prematurely than those with 'normal' blood pressure. In addition, what used to be classified as normal or high-normal blood pressure (a systolic pressure of 120-139 mm Hg and diastolic pressure of 80-89 mm Hg) is now categorized as prehypertension.
It's a little strange. All of a sudden, the experts are telling millions of people who thought they were healthy that they now have this condition called prehypertension.
Under the influence of Pharamaceutical directives, Clinical Medicine has encouraged lowering the norms for high blood pressure to ultimately sell more hypertensive medications which are no better than natural remedies at reducing the mercury. Professor Giuseppe Mancia, Director of Clinical Medicine at Milan-Bicocca University announced that there should be new recommended threshold values for systolic and diastolic blood pressure, and that the standard 140/90 mmHg should be lowered to 130/85 mmHg.
Hypertension expert, J. M. Wright, MD, PhD said this prevailing medical belief is found to be baseless and perhaps even harmful. Whether they have heart disease or not, people with high blood pressure are usually put on multiple drug therapy to reduce their chances of having a heart attack or stroke. A Cochrane review identified the seven trials that had tested this ideal and found that it didn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. Using drugs to reduce blood pressure lower than the standard target, 140/90 mmHg, did not prolong survival or reduce stroke, heart attack, heart failure or kidney failure.
Other health experts including reputable physicians and medical researchers agree. Many insist that any decrease in the established blood pressure norms are not based on mortality figures and merely a ploy to increase the market for hypertensive drugs and statins. "Normal blood pressure should statistically be in the range of 110/70 mmHg to 130/85 mmHg for the majority of the population," said Clinical Physician Dr. Raj Amarthi.
Taylor and colleagues' article in the Journal of General Internal Medicine, shows that in those under 50, diastolic blood pressure (lowest pressure within the bloodstream, occurring between heart beats i.e. when the heart relaxes) is the more important predictor of mortality, whereas in those over 50, systolic blood pressure (the highest pressure within the bloodstream, occurring during each heart beat i.e. when the heart contracts) is the stronger predictor. The authors argue it is time to consider a new definition of 'normal' blood pressure.
Taylor and colleagues examined the independent contribution of diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and systolic blood pressure (SBP) on mortality, as well as how these relationships might affect the number of Americans currently labeled as having abnormal blood pressure.
The authors looked at data for 13,792 people from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey, which enrolled participants in 1971-76 and followed them up for two decades -- they studied DBP, SBP and long-term survival data specifically. In order to assess the underlying distribution of untreated blood pressure in American adults by age, Taylor and team also looked at data for 6,672 adults from the first National Health Examination Survey carried out between 1959 and 1962.
They found that in people aged over 50, those with SBPs above 140, independent of DBP, were significantly more likely to die prematurely. In those aged 50 or less, DBPs above 100 were linked to significant increases in premature death. The authors' analysis offers alternative cut-off points for the definition of 'normal'.
Dr. Taylor concludes: "Our findings highlight that the choice of approach used to define normal blood pressure will impact literally millions of Americans. If we cannot reliably see an effect on mortality in a large group of individuals followed for nearly 20 years, should we define the condition as abnormal? We believe considering this kind of approach represents a critical step in ensuring that diagnoses are given only to those with a meaningful elevation in risk, and targeted towards individuals most likely to benefit."
Dave Mihalovic is a Naturopathic Doctor who specializes in vaccine research, cancer prevention and a natural approach to treatment.