Discussion
Do people think that the population, as a whole, is too medicated?
I am a Paramedic, and rarely see people through work who are not on meds (including, quite often, people in their 20s and 30s).
I personally was diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure) about six years ago and put on meds. This was increased about three years ago as Doc wasn't happy with my BP.
I have become increasingly concerned about taking these meds as a/ I don't think I need to and b/ even if I do, I worry about the side effects (ie: renal failure for one).
The other thing which has concerned me was about two years ago, I went through a bad patch. I talked to my Doc and he prescribed anti depressants. I was really uncomfortable about taking these, and guess what, I never did. They sat in the drawer while I go divorced, moved house and job to a new location 500 miles away and met a new wonderful lady. Guess what? I feel great. Tablets in the bin. But what if I had taken them? Would I have stayed in the same situation, as I would have then felt great (medicated, but great)?
I am of the increasing opinion that many (most?) meds are completely unnecessary and facts and figures quoted only tell part of the story. (Don't get me started on satins: if high cholesterol is so bad for you, why do young (pre menopausal) women have much higher levels of cholesterol than men and yet have much lower levels of heart disease..?)
My hypertension meds brought my BP down. Woohoo. So what? I don't think high BP causes heart disease, I think heart disease causes high BP. Why treat a symptom and not the cause?
If I stayed on my meds, my BP would be "normal" (whatever that is nowadays, it keeps changing). Nothing to see here, no changes necessary. Carry on......right until you have a heart attack as you have only been treating the symptoms.
So, I'm now off the meds. My BP has risen from systolic of 130ish to high 140s. That doesn't concern me, it just shows that I need to deal with the cause of high BP (ie, drink less, exercise more and, if I smoked (which I don't) stop smoking) instead of popping pills each day.
We are bombarded with storied like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534416/Th...
In 1971: you had a 0.008 chance of dying from this cancer.
In 2011: you had a 0.013 chance of dying from this cancer.
That's not an increase of "65%". It's an increase of 0.005%. In other words, naff all. Not worth worrying about on the grand scale of things.
Stories like this are used to scare people into taking meds, look at all the heart, stroke and cancer stories out there. Which come from research. Which is funded by drug companies. Who make a lot of money from people taking drugs. A lot. Think billions. And billions.
Of course, some drugs do lower death rates for the thing they are treating. But the overall death often goes up because the meds cause other problems.
There is much out there which covers all this. One good book is Doctoring Data. The Doctor who wrote this was interviewed on R2 (Steve Wright) a few weeks ago, and I have read his book.
This, in addition to everything else I have seen though work, personal experiences and my own research leads me to believe that many of the meds I/we/you are taking are, at best, doing nothing and at worse, adding to your problems and shortening for life.
Think before you take that tablet
I am a Paramedic, and rarely see people through work who are not on meds (including, quite often, people in their 20s and 30s).
I personally was diagnosed with hypertension (high blood pressure) about six years ago and put on meds. This was increased about three years ago as Doc wasn't happy with my BP.
I have become increasingly concerned about taking these meds as a/ I don't think I need to and b/ even if I do, I worry about the side effects (ie: renal failure for one).
The other thing which has concerned me was about two years ago, I went through a bad patch. I talked to my Doc and he prescribed anti depressants. I was really uncomfortable about taking these, and guess what, I never did. They sat in the drawer while I go divorced, moved house and job to a new location 500 miles away and met a new wonderful lady. Guess what? I feel great. Tablets in the bin. But what if I had taken them? Would I have stayed in the same situation, as I would have then felt great (medicated, but great)?
I am of the increasing opinion that many (most?) meds are completely unnecessary and facts and figures quoted only tell part of the story. (Don't get me started on satins: if high cholesterol is so bad for you, why do young (pre menopausal) women have much higher levels of cholesterol than men and yet have much lower levels of heart disease..?)
My hypertension meds brought my BP down. Woohoo. So what? I don't think high BP causes heart disease, I think heart disease causes high BP. Why treat a symptom and not the cause?
If I stayed on my meds, my BP would be "normal" (whatever that is nowadays, it keeps changing). Nothing to see here, no changes necessary. Carry on......right until you have a heart attack as you have only been treating the symptoms.
So, I'm now off the meds. My BP has risen from systolic of 130ish to high 140s. That doesn't concern me, it just shows that I need to deal with the cause of high BP (ie, drink less, exercise more and, if I smoked (which I don't) stop smoking) instead of popping pills each day.
We are bombarded with storied like this:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2534416/Th...
DM said:
Numbers of people dying from oesophageal cancer - cancer of the gullet or food pipe - have risen by almost 50 per cent in the last 40 years according to new figures.
Around 7,600 people - 13 in every 100,000 - died from oesophageal cancer in 2011, compared to around 3,800 in 1971 (eight in every 100,000).
For men, death rates have jumped by 65 per cent since the 1970s, say figures published today by Cancer Research UK charity.
So the actual figures are:Around 7,600 people - 13 in every 100,000 - died from oesophageal cancer in 2011, compared to around 3,800 in 1971 (eight in every 100,000).
For men, death rates have jumped by 65 per cent since the 1970s, say figures published today by Cancer Research UK charity.
In 1971: you had a 0.008 chance of dying from this cancer.
In 2011: you had a 0.013 chance of dying from this cancer.
That's not an increase of "65%". It's an increase of 0.005%. In other words, naff all. Not worth worrying about on the grand scale of things.
Stories like this are used to scare people into taking meds, look at all the heart, stroke and cancer stories out there. Which come from research. Which is funded by drug companies. Who make a lot of money from people taking drugs. A lot. Think billions. And billions.
Of course, some drugs do lower death rates for the thing they are treating. But the overall death often goes up because the meds cause other problems.
There is much out there which covers all this. One good book is Doctoring Data. The Doctor who wrote this was interviewed on R2 (Steve Wright) a few weeks ago, and I have read his book.
This, in addition to everything else I have seen though work, personal experiences and my own research leads me to believe that many of the meds I/we/you are taking are, at best, doing nothing and at worse, adding to your problems and shortening for life.
Think before you take that tablet
Sequellae of hypertension include,
Arteriosclerosis
Aneurysm
Ventricular hypertrophy
Heart failure
Transient ischaemic attack
Stroke
Vascular dementia
Kidney failure
Retinopathy
Choroidopathy
Optic neuropathy
I find it worrying that as a frontline medical professional you are ignorant of this. Your misunderstanding of basic mathematics isn't too clever either.
Arteriosclerosis
Aneurysm
Ventricular hypertrophy
Heart failure
Transient ischaemic attack
Stroke
Vascular dementia
Kidney failure
Retinopathy
Choroidopathy
Optic neuropathy
I find it worrying that as a frontline medical professional you are ignorant of this. Your misunderstanding of basic mathematics isn't too clever either.
DocJock said:
Sequellae of hypertension include,
Arteriosclerosis
Aneurysm
Ventricular hypertrophy
Heart failure
Transient ischaemic attack
Stroke
Vascular dementia
Kidney failure
Retinopathy
Choroidopathy
Optic neuropathy
I find it worrying that as a frontline medical professional you are ignorant of this. Your misunderstanding of basic mathematics isn't too clever either.
Is that list caused by hypertension, or by heart disease (or by the meds themselves)...?Arteriosclerosis
Aneurysm
Ventricular hypertrophy
Heart failure
Transient ischaemic attack
Stroke
Vascular dementia
Kidney failure
Retinopathy
Choroidopathy
Optic neuropathy
I find it worrying that as a frontline medical professional you are ignorant of this. Your misunderstanding of basic mathematics isn't too clever either.
If my maths is incorrect, please correct.
How about I change your list a little bit:
Sequellae of Heart Disease include,
Hypertension
Arteriosclerosis
Aneurysm
Ventricular hypertrophy
Heart failure
Transient ischaemic attack
Stroke
Vascular dementia
Kidney failure
Retinopathy
Choroidopathy
Optic neuropathy
That makes more sense to me.
Edited by JumboBeef on Sunday 13th September 11:11
Also, I note that in "Doctoring Data" the doctor who wrote that stated that if anyone tries to question the status quo (ie: daring to say the medical and pharmacy professions might be wrong), other medical professionals attack them.
In your post, you don't raise counter arguments, you just resort to (trying to) belittle me.
So, come on Doc, what causes Hypertension, if not heart disease? I'm happy to be corrected.
In your post, you don't raise counter arguments, you just resort to (trying to) belittle me.
So, come on Doc, what causes Hypertension, if not heart disease? I'm happy to be corrected.
Dr Jekyll said:
I have never smoked rarely drink am only mildly overweight and when I had my BP checked it was around 190/115.
But WHY is it so high? Ask the medical profession, and they'll (probably: I don't know you personally) say it's "essential hypertension". Definition:Essential hypertension is high blood pressure that does not have a known cause.
No cause? Really? How can the medical profession say you are suffering from something which, although they don't know what is causing it, you need meds to treat it.....?
I still think hypertension is caused by heart disease and high BP is a symptom. As I said up there, why treat a symptom and not the cause (by possibly changing lifestyle: smoking, drinking, exercise, or it might hereditary, everyone is different, instead of popping pills and making the drug companies billions)?
Edited by JumboBeef on Sunday 13th September 11:12
Hypertension is better considered a risk factor for heart disease and stroke (and kidney failure, blindness, arterial disease...) rather than a illness in it's own right.
Best treated by lifestyle modification; lose weight, stop smoking, reduce salt in diet, exercise regularly.
Unfortunately these behavioural changes both take effort and have only a limited effect.
Best treated by lifestyle modification; lose weight, stop smoking, reduce salt in diet, exercise regularly.
Unfortunately these behavioural changes both take effort and have only a limited effect.
Medication of mild to moderate reactive or situational depression is certainly much more of a problem.
But again, it is often the only thing a GP can do to help, as there is little investment in Mental Health services, talking therapies are difficult to access.
But mainly because people seem to have an expectation to be happy, and life is often just not like that; it is hard, and cruel, and one must work to make one's own life better, not expect an entitlement to be happy, rich and successful, without working for it.
This does not apply to any with an endogenous true depression, although the two things often coincide.
But again, it is often the only thing a GP can do to help, as there is little investment in Mental Health services, talking therapies are difficult to access.
But mainly because people seem to have an expectation to be happy, and life is often just not like that; it is hard, and cruel, and one must work to make one's own life better, not expect an entitlement to be happy, rich and successful, without working for it.
This does not apply to any with an endogenous true depression, although the two things often coincide.
knk said:
Hypertension is better considered a risk factor for heart disease and stroke (and kidney failure, blindness, arterial disease...) rather than a illness in it's own right.
Best treated by lifestyle modification; lose weight, stop smoking, reduce salt in diet, exercise regularly.
Unfortunately these behavioural changes both take effort and have only a limited effect.
I agree but taking pills just to lower the BP and not treat the underlying cause is like taking your car to a garage with a warning light on and telling them just to disconnect the warning light rather than fix the reason it is on in the first place.Best treated by lifestyle modification; lose weight, stop smoking, reduce salt in diet, exercise regularly.
Unfortunately these behavioural changes both take effort and have only a limited effect.
Too many professionals seem to think high BP = drugs = "normal" BP = job sorted without questioning why the BP is raised in the first place.
What about statins? Or how about people who are only diabetic because the guidelines have lowered the point at which you are classed as diabetic. Guidelines drawn up by diabetic charities........who receive large donations from drug companies..... Just saying....
Don't have much to add - I fall completely on the "patient" side of the profession, but it makes for very interesting reading.
I certainly don't have any confidence in big pharma's intentions, and as you say they are right in the thick of this - their profits come from encouraging people to take their medication.
I certainly don't have any confidence in big pharma's intentions, and as you say they are right in the thick of this - their profits come from encouraging people to take their medication.
I think medication is often an easy route for people to get out of things like high blood pressure. High BP will have a reason. Whether it's that persons norm, they're stressed, poor diet etc etc etc.
My blood pressure is typically around 110/70. If you were to take my blood pressure immediately after doing a hard run or bike ride it would be higher. That doesn't mean I suffer from high blood pressure, it's high because of the circumstances and is a normal physiological response.
If people found and sorted the reason for their blood pressure problems medication wouldn't be needed anywhere near as much as it is.
I appreciate that's a generalisation but the jist suits a lot of examples.
My blood pressure is typically around 110/70. If you were to take my blood pressure immediately after doing a hard run or bike ride it would be higher. That doesn't mean I suffer from high blood pressure, it's high because of the circumstances and is a normal physiological response.
If people found and sorted the reason for their blood pressure problems medication wouldn't be needed anywhere near as much as it is.
I appreciate that's a generalisation but the jist suits a lot of examples.
JumboBeef said:
I agree but taking pills just to lower the BP and not treat the underlying cause is like taking your car to a garage with a warning light on and telling them just to disconnect the warning light rather than fix the reason it is on in the first place.
Not really, because high blood pressure does itself cause problems irrespective of the underlying cause. Dr Jekyll said:
JumboBeef said:
I agree but taking pills just to lower the BP and not treat the underlying cause is like taking your car to a garage with a warning light on and telling them just to disconnect the warning light rather than fix the reason it is on in the first place.
Not really, because high blood pressure does itself cause problems irrespective of the underlying cause. A friend of ice has a poor diet and is morbidly obese. He has high blood pressure, he's on medication for that.
In reality, if he worked by losing weight and doing some bloody exercise he wouldn't need the drugs.
Dr Jekyll said:
JumboBeef said:
I agree but taking pills just to lower the BP and not treat the underlying cause is like taking your car to a garage with a warning light on and telling them just to disconnect the warning light rather than fix the reason it is on in the first place.
Not really, because high blood pressure does itself cause problems irrespective of the underlying cause. It this a better analogy?
Also, while meds can lower BP, they can cause other problems such as renal problems, problems you wouldn't suffer if you treated the root cause rather than the symptom.
JumboBeef said:
Ok, your wheel nuts keep coming loose and you have to tighten them daily, otherwise your wheel will come off and cause lots of problems. You do this daily instead of fixing why your wheel nuts come loose every day in the first place.
It this a better analogy?
Yes, until you can figure out what's causing them to come loose you keep tightening them rather than drive on loose nuts on principle. It this a better analogy?
JumboBeef said:
...taking pills just to lower the BP and not treat the underlying cause...
Totally agree.My wife is taking 14 different pills a day and I'm sure that if some of the underlying causes were addressed she wouldn't need as many but asking the doc to do anything is a waste of time and we have a great GP!
But on the other hand my Father is on drugs that keep him alive and have done for 40+ years. He has Addison's disease so there is no option but drugs.
Drug companies need people to use their products to make money and fund new research but I knew a drug rep years ago and the freebies he had to give to doctors were a lot more expensive than a branded pen or mouse mat!
This just popped up on me Twitter feed as a promoted tweet:
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/promotions/bayer-meters....
Drug company will give you, free, a nice gadget to test your blood sugar. How do they fund this?
Oh, look at the bottom of the page they even give you the code to tell your GP which strips to prescribe!
http://www.diabetes.co.uk/promotions/bayer-meters....
Drug company will give you, free, a nice gadget to test your blood sugar. How do they fund this?
Oh, look at the bottom of the page they even give you the code to tell your GP which strips to prescribe!
I'm with you, OP. Long term medication of large swathes of the population is clearly wrong.
I have the beginnings of eye damage from statins. And I never believed the Cholesterol Hypothesis in the first place! Obviously, I didn't take them for long. Just the one pill for high BP now, though I've tried most of them.
I believe our obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome epidemic is caused by our huge cereal and sugar intake and the ensuing insulin response. But cereals are cheap and our ruling classes are fixated on the risks (to them) posed by a hungry peasantry. So the prescription is cheap 'fortified' calories and being pumped full of drugs.
I have the beginnings of eye damage from statins. And I never believed the Cholesterol Hypothesis in the first place! Obviously, I didn't take them for long. Just the one pill for high BP now, though I've tried most of them.
I believe our obesity/diabetes/metabolic syndrome epidemic is caused by our huge cereal and sugar intake and the ensuing insulin response. But cereals are cheap and our ruling classes are fixated on the risks (to them) posed by a hungry peasantry. So the prescription is cheap 'fortified' calories and being pumped full of drugs.
The trouble isn't the cereals, it's the cereals people choose. I usually have either jumbo porridge oats (and I don't add extra sugar.... Sometimes I'll add cinnamon, or a chopped banana but generally it's just plain porridge and milk) or shredded wheat. Only sugars there come from the milk. It's just people generally choose cereals which are something daft like 20% sugar..... Plus adding the sugar from the milk means they're getting far too much, as you suggest.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff