Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Beta blockers are busted – what happens next?

page: 2
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Another great job well done.
S&F

btw - I take a beta-blocker called metoprolol - it made a HUGE positive difference as soon as I started on it, and let me start living my life again. Lately tho, have been noticing some pesky side-effects...




posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 02:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
JAMA Published study: β-Blocker Use and Clinical Outcomes in Stable Outpatients With and Without Coronary Artery Disease


Conclusion In this observational study of patients with either CAD risk factors only, known prior MI, or known CAD without MI, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events.


Emphasis mine.

I understand that we want to justify the use of the chemicals in question... but I feel we are missing a larger picture - especially in the area of personal perception and the ability of the human body to heal and regulate itself.

However my point was not that there was some 'fuzzy science' in the mix... it was that there appears to have been NO science in it. I mean, seriously? We are seeing exactly what beta blockers are NOT doing - have never done, and we are still thinking that it does work - or did?

The net result of the 40,000+ person long term study seems to speak for itself... yet some of you are insistent that there is 'another' way to look at this. Really? You must make it clearer for me how this conclusion is something other than "β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events."

edit on 13-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)


What do you mean? The articles that you quoted explained the dichotomy in the same article: that BB was shown to be beneficial initially in chronic ischemic heart disease and subsequent treatments have made them not as effective.

BB is still proven in acute ischema. BB is still proven in outflow obstruction where rate limitation is essential.

Just a question, so I know how far deep into cardiopulmonary physiology I need to go into. What is your education and knowlege base RE medicine and physiology?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:10 PM
link   
reply to post by rickymouse
 


My hypertension is caused by fibromuscular dysplasia blocking the kidney artery, causing the angiotensin-converting-enzyme to bugger up, and (now) affecting the heart. ....I've always eaten healthy, stayed physically and spiritually active, etc. ...I drink green tea, add cocoa and cinnamon to my smoothies with greens, and eat curries heavy on the turmeric... There's more, but any comment?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:11 PM
link   
As with any drug, it depends upon the individual and their chemistry. I was prescribed them many years ago for anxiety and panic attacks. They worked brilliantly, although as a side effect, I was very detached emotionally...but then that was the point.


While there is a problem with any new 'wonder drug' being over prescribed, it is always the responsibility of the individual to know what and why they are taking something and to be proactive in the way they approach their GP. No doctor is capable of knowing you as well as you do, and you must insist that they explain to you why they think a drug will help and what exactly it is going to do to you. And if they don't you should get a doctor that does. Doctors, though some may think it, are not all knowing gods.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
What do you mean? The articles that you quoted explained the dichotomy in the same article...



The problem is one that ATS suffers from badly.
People dont read any more than the "outrage" sensationalist headline before posting their knee jerk reaction thoughts.

Somebody ranted about this just a few hours ago...
ATS is NOT a T.V, You Have To Do SOME Reading...

One day I'm going to start a new thread with a sensationalist headline like "Cop shoots child for wearing red t-shirt", and put a bunch of stuff about gardening in the message text. Chances are, many people will reply about the shooting.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:36 PM
link   
reply to post by soficrow
 


Chocolate is an ace inhibitor. Vitamin d can act as an ace inhibitor also. Codliver oil is high in vitamin d so maybe it may help. Cinnimon is a tyramine and can raise blood pressure. Eating foods containing copper help the MAO work to restrict tyromine activity which raises blood pressure. Being you seem to have a blockage in your kidney, you may be screwed. Maybe a little holy thistle to slowly rejuvenate the organs. It can only do so much but it does help using it for a week then wait a month and a half and use it for another week. Using it too long made my liver and kidneys jump around a little but I have a condition where the liver doesn't rid the body of things quickly. You may not have a problem with it. Talk to a worker at a food coop, they seem to no lots in those places.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 03:53 PM
link   
OTOH, inderal is just DUCKY for polygraphs, so it's got that going for it.

Protip: if you're ever going to have to be polygraphed, inderal greatly blunts that kneejerk reaction to questions. It can also be used to reduce the mind-body feedback that creates panic, if you know you're going to be in a situation that you find - intimidating. Like Christmas time in a shopping mall, which used to really creep me out.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

Originally posted by NavyDoc
What do you mean? The articles that you quoted explained the dichotomy in the same article...


The problem is one that ATS suffers from badly.
People dont read any more than the "outrage" sensationalist headline before posting their knee jerk reaction thoughts.

Somebody ranted about this just a few hours ago...
ATS is NOT a T.V, You Have To Do SOME Reading...

One day I'm going to start a new thread with a sensationalist headline like "Cop shoots child for wearing red t-shirt", and put a bunch of stuff about gardening in the message text. Chances are, many people will reply about the shooting.


This response saddens me.

I have been told, in no uncertain terms that the results of the research I posted about does not equate to what I wrote about it, and you have told me I haven't read the material. You even joke about creating a HOAX thread to satisfy your sense of presumptive indignation, as an equitable example of what I did. In essence you have chose this thread to demonstrate disdain for my efforts.

It makes me question the point of discussing things of interest to me with you. It tells me that rather than chose the course of kindness and presume I was mistaken, or suffering from a misunderstanding, instead you choose the righteous posture of implying I didn't read the material and was attempting to be sensational.

I hope other members may be more inclined to accept that I post because I am interested and think others may be too. That I don't pretend to be an expert and that the reason I like to discuss it here is that others with more familiarity or professional legerdemain can enlighten or educate me. But you are free to characterize me as you have; I can only expect an answer that further vilifies my intent or efforts.

Spare me if that is your intent... I ask no further favors.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc

What do you mean? The articles that you quoted explained the dichotomy in the same article: that BB was shown to be beneficial initially in chronic ischemic heart disease and subsequent treatments have made them not as effective.

BB is still proven in acute ischema. BB is still proven in outflow obstruction where rate limitation is essential.

Just a question, so I know how far deep into cardiopulmonary physiology I need to go into. What is your education and knowlege base RE medicine and physiology?


Thank you for at least troubling to honor my request for more information on your assessment. I boast no special knowledge or professional status that qualifies me to speak as a medical researcher or scientists, I am no doctor, and all I know is what I read and try to understand. So much for vetting my aptitude....

As my first point I am in no way stating that the article does not discuss dichotomy, as you correctly put it. However, i am disinclined to accept the article over the research itself... in that research I found no statements about beta-blockers having measurable therapeutic value insofar as it's advertised strength of reducing the very conditions for which long-term therapeutic regimens are prescribed.

I understand that the net effect of the molecule is to bond to the surface receptors of the muscle and circulatory tissues and block it's regular reaction to other physiologically produced chemicals which increase heart rate and blood pressure. But this is not about ancillary applications of the drug for immediate application in cases of immediate urgency. Beta-blockers had been, in my understanding, used as a long term measure to decrease the potential for coronary illnesses such as infarction and such... to that end it appears there has never been a statistical indication that it had any effectiveness, unless human physiology has changed somehow since 1962 and now. Other therapies may work... but that is not the reason beta-blockers don't.

Granted, I am a layman, and not well versed in biomechanics or chemical physiology so perhaps I am misunderstanding the core discovery.... which is regurgitated here in another article as well.

Beta-Blocker Use May Not Prevent Heart Attack, Death and Stroke, New Study Reveals


"Treatment with beta-blockers remains the standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease, especially when they have had a myocardial infarction [MI; heart attack]. The evidence is derived from relatively old post-MI studies, most of which antedate modern reperfusion or medical therapy, and from heart failure trials, but has been widely extrapolated to patients with CAD and even to patients at high risk for but without established CAD. It is not known if these extrapolations are justified. Moreover, the long-term efficacy of these agents in patients treated with contemporary medical therapies is not known, even in patients with prior MI," according to background information in the article.


I must ask if this apparent exasperation about the headlines they use is also part of the objection you share with others. That is a matter for the publishing source... I cannot change it.

Thanks for taking a moment to invite feedback.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
JAMA Published study: β-Blocker Use and Clinical Outcomes in Stable Outpatients With and Without Coronary Artery Disease


Conclusion In this observational study of patients with either CAD risk factors only, known prior MI, or known CAD without MI, the use of β-blockers was not associated with a lower risk of composite cardiovascular events.





I'm the first one to nowaday's to say "Hell no!" to the drugs, but the research study quoted above was conducted in recent years.....If this was a study from way back in the day i.e a couple of years after being licensed, then it might be a different story.

I'm sure you are aware of the research that has been conducted into epigenetics, and how environmental factors can alter the expression of genes, well with all our advances in the area of cardiology, it looks to me as though it may well play a role.

That is to say, the newer treatments at cellular level (and smaller), are effective, rendering the benefit from older treatments such as beta blockers obselete.

I'm not saying epigenetics is pivotal in any of this, but certainly at some point, the treament had a benefit, just that benefit no longer exists...as tabled by the above source.

But I do agree wholeheartedly with your stance that there are a lot of needless medications out there which may or may not be of any continued benefit in this day and age, in fact a fair few are darn right hazardous.
edit on 13-11-2012 by solargeddon because: Whoopies galoure !
edit on 13-11-2012 by solargeddon because: more typos



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:50 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


In a cursory reading of your OP I just wanted to add my personal experiences here.

From the age of 13 until 28 I had a heart condition called Wolfe-Parkinson-White Syndrome - an arrhythmic disorder and was on Propanolol (brand name Inderal ), a beta blocker for the entire time. From my personal experiences I am 100% positive that the medication was beneficial - at least in my case, with that specific diagnosis. On the rare occasion that I could not get my medication on time, for whatever reason, I would quickly go into an irregular heart rhythm.

As a caveat - my medication regimen also always included a secondary medication, such as quinidine or fleccanide - so there could have been a combined beneficial effect. What I do know is that these medications only worked in tandem... IE skipping either drug would cause an almost immediate onset of symptoms.

~Heff



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:52 PM
link   
reply to post by solargeddon
 


That had not occurred to me! I have to admit, it seems very reasonable to assume that as our personal biosphere has become awash with new chemical radicals and such, maybe this has created an change in our reaction to the molecular shape of the blocker itself..

Why this declaration is being received as some kind of earth-shattering paradigm shift is beyond me.

The pharmaceutical industry engages in commerce... not medicine. That they wish to maximize the potential revenue stream on every product is reasonable... but I would have like to have seen why it took so many decades to realize that beta blockers were being prescribed as long-term therapy when the long-term benefits appear to show no indication that it is medically or scientifically justified.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
I've been on a beta blocker (propranalol) for a number of years now, and they do work for me.

I suffered with arrhythmia and palpitations for years before I finally went on it, and within a month I could tell the difference in the frequency, strength, and duration of my attacks. They've definately tapered down to just the odd flutter here and there rather than full blown events that used to scare the living bejesus out of me.

I haven't suffered any side effects that I'm aware of other than a slight drop in libido, which is really no big deal when compared to life before the beta blockers.

I just wish the damn doctors would get to the bottom of why I have the arrhythmia and palpitations rather than covering it with a bandaid.

But in the meantime, my quality of life has greatly improved... whereas before I literally couldn't function on a day to day basis.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by solargeddon
So it looks as thought at some point, way back when, there was a benefit to be had, but this has since dissappeared, due to advent of other advances in medicine.


Exactly - nothing at all to do with "millions to be made" or other conspiracy theories abounding here.

This is real science at work - advancing medical technology overtakes older technology.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 04:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Hefficide
 


I'm happy that people are reporting it works (or worked) for them.

Not to be facetious or anything... I am a firm believer in the ability of the human mind to play a large role in regulating itself... but I would never advocate for the dismissal of medical science as a guide from which to work.

What alarmed me (in a manner of speaking) was the idea that if hundreds of thousands of geriatric patients are taking this drug - despite no statistical correlation with it's intended purpose (to diminish the possibility of death via some form of circulatory problem.) How is it that the practice continues.... and by all indications... looks likely to continue unabated?

If it works - it works... and when it comes to health I don't think we can ask for more than that. But there are questions here which transcend the application... and could bleed into (pardon the pun) the commerce aspect of it.

Knowing the industry's patterns of behavior, I expect it will be a relatively short period before many "new" articles come out to debunk this one. Seems par for the course.
edit on 13-11-2012 by Maxmars because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Maxmars
reply to post by solargeddon
 


That had not occurred to me! I have to admit, it seems very reasonable to assume that as our personal biosphere has become awash with new chemical radicals and such, maybe this has created an change in our reaction to the molecular shape of the blocker itself..


no.

the reason is that reperfusion therapy after heart attacks means that he conditions for which beta-blockers are effective are much less common than they used to be.

It is all covered in the article -


Damaged hearts are more prone to fatal irregular beats, and beta blockers are useful in controlling this. But with the advent of reperfusion therapy, people who survived heart attacks suffered less cardiac damage, so the frequency of fatal arrhythmias was lower. Put simply, the beta blocker effect was significant before the advent of this improved treatment, but the beneficial effect has since disappeared.


and was pointed out on page 1 of this thread.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

....advancing medical technology overtakes older technology.


Doesn't that presume they will no longer prescribe beta-blockers as therapy against cardiac death? I think they already made the case for it continuing regardless.... it being "harmless" and all....

so instead of new science overtaking the old... it's merely tacked onto it... not a replacement for the old... but an addition to what already is known to not work to that end. Or is my point that obtuse?



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


And again, the article is not the research.


Objective To assess the association of β-blocker use with cardiovascular events in stable patients with a prior history of MI, in those with CAD but no history of MI, and in those with only risk factors for CAD.


Notice that it is not solely about people with heart damage...that is a subset of the study group.

It was found to NOT HAVE A MEASURABLE EFFECT towards the prevention of death.... (Which is why it is used.)



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:20 PM
link   
reply to post by Maxmars
 


Well there in lies the question...Just how long have they known the newer treatments superceeded the older ones ?

That's the real conspiracey here.

I do think, and I am quite surprised the "New Scientist" has sensationalised the truth somewhat here, but I think all points are valid, and it stands to reason that depsite the balanced view gievn in the article, it certainly is loaded, given it's title, on the side of big pharma, only caring about the big buck.

What is even more scary, is how many other treatments out there, are still being used, and are of no longer of any benefit at present?

The trouble is, I have a feeling that no research was done for huge chunk of time, just out of the "If it ain't brke, don't fix it mentality." Perhaps, doctors began reporting problems, or a review was carried out to re-assess, after noticing the number of positive outcomes changed, who knows, but I'm willing to bet in the ever changing world of research, we will see more instances like this in the future.



posted on Nov, 13 2012 @ 05:22 PM
link   
Beta blockers are used for lots of indications. From lowering blood pressure to migraine. They are usually the cheapest medications around.
Much cheaper then reperfusion ,statins and modern antihypertensive drugs (beta blockers are used as anti hypertensive drugs, too. Again - among cheaper ones ).
And there are two factors in medication efficacy - improving life expectancy and improving quality of life. Digoxin (heart rate problems and congestive heart failure therapy; sounds familiar?) for example improves quality of life while not influencing life expectancy. The advise was to use beta blockers instead but if those failed to work as far as heart rate control ar arythmeas were concerned in certain patients - go for digoxin. Nobody stated that digoxin was useless because it does not prolong life - because people with specific heart problems who used it felt better and there were less hospitalizations.
So it is very important to know that beta blockers do not prolong life expectancy.
It is just as important to know that there are new,probably much more expensive drugs in the pipeline that will take place of beta blockers just as later took place of digoxin..And who knows what published articles in few decades will say about them.



edit on 13-11-2012 by ZeroKnowledge because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
22
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join