just read this if you believe studies, Researchers at Kaiser Permanente Southern California studied the records of almost 400,000 people with high blood pressure who were being treated with medication.
They found that patients whose readings were between 130/60 and 139/79 — a range doctors consider “prehypertension” — had the lowest kidney failure rates. Patients with readings considered ideal by experts — below 120/80 — were at substantially increased risk.
“Many studies of people with high blood pressure have shown that bringing extremely high blood pressure with the top number ranging from 190 to 200, down to readings of about 150 show resounding improvements in the risk for strokes, kidney failure, and heart attack,” said study leader nephrologist and hypertension expert John J. Sim, M.D.
“So, we made the assumption that if we further lowered it, even to levels under 120, that would be even better,” he told Newsmax Health. “The truth is there are no studies that have demonstrated that.”
Doctors often prescribe drugs with the goal of bringing systolic blood pressure readings (the top number) down to the 120 range and even below. This may be a fatal mistake.
In Dr. Sim’s study, patients whose top (systolic) readings dropped into the 120 to 129 range were at a 12 percent increased risk of death or kidney failure, but those whose readings fell to 110 to 119 were 81 percent more likely to die or suffer kidney failure. so if your bp is 150/90 its perfect,esp without drugs.
Written by
peter999999999
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
it might make a lot on here less anxious when there high bp is in the normal/healthy range, think of the relief they will get if they knew this and not been terrified by docs to take pills they dont need.
also They saw that people aged 70 and over who had a lower blood pressure — of 140/90 mm Hg or under — actually had a 40 percent higher mortality risk than peers with blood pressure exceeding those thresholds.
Even people who’d already had a stroke or a heart attack presented a similar link between blood pressure levels and mortality risk.
The team also emphasizes that people with blood pressure lower than 140/90 mm Hg had a 61 percent higher risk of death than those whose blood pressure remained high in spite of their antihypertensive drug regimen.
“Our results show clearly that, within these groups of patients, antihypertensive treatment should be adjusted based on the needs of the individual,” notes first study author Dr. Antonios Douros.
Peter-- you seem to be conflating two different research reports.
This is the abstract of Dr Douros' latest research, which I think you are alluding to.
Aims: To assess whether blood pressure (BP) values below 140/90 mmHg during antihypertensive treatment are associated with a decreased risk of all-cause mortality in community-dwelling older adults. Methods and results: Within the Berlin Initiative Study, we assembled a cohort of patients ≥70 years treated with antihypertensive drugs at baseline (November 2009-June 2011). End of prospective follow-up was December 2016. Cox proportional hazards models yielded adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) of all-cause mortality associated with normalized BP [systolic BP (SBP) <140 mmHg and diastolic BP (DBP) <90 mmHg] compared with non-normalized BP (SBP ≥140 mmHg or DBP ≥90 mmHg) overall and after stratification by age or previous cardiovascular events. Among 1628 patients (mean age 81 years) on antihypertensive drugs, 636 exhibited normalized BP. During 8853 person-years of follow-up, 469 patients died. Compared with non-normalized BP, normalized BP was associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality (incidence rates: 60.3 vs. 48.5 per 1000/year; HR 1.26; 95% CI 1.04-1.54). Increased risks were observed in patients ≥80 years (102.2 vs. 77.5 per 1000/year; HR 1.40; 95% CI 1.12-1.74) and with previous cardiovascular events (98.3 vs. 63.6 per 1000/year; HR 1.61; 95% CI 1.14-2.27) but not in patients aged 70-79 years (22.6 vs. 22.7 per 1000/year; HR 0.83; 95% CI 0.54-1.27) or without previous cardiovascular events (45.2 vs. 44.4 per 1000/year; HR 1.16, 95% CI 0.90-1.48). Conclusion: Blood pressure values below 140/90 mmHg during antihypertensive treatment may be associated with an increased risk of mortality in octogenarians or elderly patients with previous cardiovascular events
I am still trying to locate the other paper you are quoting.
no that was not it, i read all the time through loads of diverse things, so i just get what i think is not to complecated, no idea which one mine was from, but you get the idea, my bp i was checking some notes i made when i was 50,went a well man clinic 161 over 90, i played football after that,at 60 it was 161 again at the clinic 75 next year so thats 25 years of bp above what they say is healthy now,then it was ok and i still walk 10 miles a day, so its not a instant death sentance when you get higher readings, been taking aspirin now for nearly 35 years,and turmeric.
Thank you , I think the BP ranges need to be studied more , also at 110 it is considered to be too low so 120 is boardering on too low in my opinion . Do people realise that low blood pressure is bad just the same as high. Similar applies to weight too high or low is dangerous or at least is know to alter the function of your body organs. Maybe it is time to take more notice of the patients normal readings or whether they are fluctuating from their norm. To do this DRs need to monitor their patients, so they know when something is abnormal.
thank you at least someone agrees with me lol,monitor there patients mine does not even no im off bp drugs ,although not had a prescription for them for ages, if you want to sell more drugs just lower the bp limit from 150/90 to 120/80 millions more pills sold its a farce .the worst bit is we fall for it ,normal one week at 150 next week you are in the danger level above 120.
Hi, Peter! New here, but glad to have seen your post! Have been reading posts here for some time and entirelly agree with your views about BP drugs! Here is why...
In our bodies, there is a sophisticated regulation of many processes and parameters. With the aging, these regulations get poorer and the regulated values tend to oscilate in broader limits, not meaning that they are immediatelly life threatenning or dangerous.
What most of us, elderly, have experienced, is poorer modulation of eye lenses, resulting in loosing close distance sight with the age. Following the advise of the doctors, people start using glasses very early, at the age of 40-45 in the course "not to deteriorate" their sight. I am 70, started having "baby boomers" disease quite normally, at the age of 45, but refused to listen to the doctors. Instead of taking the glasses immediatelly and the strong ones - to protect the eyes, I used the weakest glasses possible, only when needed, and the rest of the day I walked without any glasses. I was strongly advised by my close friends, the doctors, not to gamble with my sight, and to use "the crutches".
The result after 25 years of disobedience: I stil walk around the house without glasses, I watch the TV without the glasses, I drive without the glasses and, when I work at the computer, I use +1,25, which is far below what my "qualified" friends use. In general, my generation uses +2 when watching the TV, and +4 when reading and doing close work.
The same applies for BP - do not use the "crutches" since you are interfering with a highly sophisticated regulation, without knowing enough about the possible consequences, sometimes even from the side of the drug producers. Some 10 years ago, they have admitted that the BP drug (do not remember the name of it, but try to Google it), produced and used by the patients for about 30 years, was actually cancerous.
Sorry about being so long and about the poor language (not my native).
All of us are too impressed by the white coats! If they say you should take the drug and prescribe the amount, people blindly follow it. But lately, after all that we are experiencing with the famous jabs, I see that the trust to the medical profession is, at least partly, gone.
Some 5 weeks ago, I contracted "something". The symptoms were like the flu symptoms, not very pronounced, but very persistant. Do you think, I went to the GP?! No! They would have put me under the test, found me positive, sent me to specialized hospital, put me on ventilator and...The End! No, I suffered silently at home and went through it within 3 weeks. Now, still having some very mild symptoms, but generally OK.
yes very true if u can ever see a doc ours do phone i dont bother, aspirin i was reading good for covid and i wont have any jabs,not tested enough for me
I am also "pure blood" and so proud of it! Your Dr John Campbell has very interesting videos in YT, with tens of thousands of sincere comments. There, one can see what the reality is, everyone is telling his sincere story.
Dr John Campbell is a breath of fresh air. He has many videos on youtube, he's really helped me stand fast in my decision regarding the jabs. Plenty of links to peer reviewed info on his youtube site.
why the us guidlines,funded by the drug companies,good way to get millions moe people on there drugs,nice little earner,that is if u believe the studies exists, has i proved on here no one ever been on a study or trial, how could they ever monitor thousands over 70 years of age for 20 years and young people would never go one one,are these so called people ill with other things,in hospital,care homes,black/white,diabetics, cancer you can never say it lowers your chance by 10 percent, have you yourself got a ticket to wake up alive in the morning,of course not,no one has, just eat healthy and walk,and american heart surgeon who was 99 said walnuts key to long life, eat them . ill sell u one of my live forever pills 100 percent works or your money back,ive wrote thousands of papers on there benifits,loads sold ,and im now puplishing my books,testimonials galore no one asked for a refund yet,
Thanks for the advise, but I do not trust the MDs for two reasons. As the first, high quality high school pupils study technics , while those ones with average success go to study medicine (the worst ones go to study jura and economy, lol). As the second, during this staged plandemic, MDs have almost fully colaborated with big pharma, collecting money for false death diagnoses and for "magic water" given to the patients. Every "death from Cov" was payed for, so that even people who died in a car accident were labeled with Cov. Look at what people have written in comments in YT, and you will see that the trust to medical profession is amost completely gone. Shame on dictors! Shame on them that they are still colaborating, "not having the time"for the patients but only for telephone contact lasting 15 mins! All planed and against the patients!
you do talk a load of nonsence, first you like all these studies,then when they prove you wrong,you come up with other daft studies, dont try to kid us , ive proved on here no one been on theses studies and what do they prove nothing,who were these people.how old,race,were they bad before what medicine,were they on,to many factors to make a detailed study over how meny years,
I scanned this very quickly, but this is another study (of which I see SO many now) that gets a sweeping dramatic conclusion based on nothing.this was a aspirin study,but you can find meny on bp pills etc
It was a retrospective study that looked a several other studies of people were seen for some heart related treatment. Since the info is coming from different studies, they likely had different design and parameters. The aspirin use was based on SELF REPORT and as far as I can see, there were 2 categories. Aspirin USED or NOT USED. There was no information on how this was asked, or what determined "use" - i.e. one time, every day for 6 years; etc. etc. No information on dose. In other words, this study is meaningless. They did some states to show an increase in heart failure correlating with people who reported they used aspirin at all apparently. And obviously who knows what else was going on.
The conclusion I draw from this study is that 'someone' wants to shed a negative light on aspirin,
aspirin to take a examlpleUntil recently, it was actually recommended for people at risk for strokes and heart disease at a low dose, I think 78 mg . At it was also used as an anti-coagulant. It is really criminal, b/c it works very well for that, but the drug companies make more expensive drugs for that. Pfizer (interestingly) has a new one, called Eliquis. It has a lot of reported side effects, so we no who funds these studies, think how much the make or would have if they had come up with aspirin just lately,they would have charged and made a fortune out of it,the only thing we agree on is diet/exercise for bp control, nice slow breathing works as well,by a resperate bp machine they are good as well, the bleeding issue with aspirin can be minimized by taking vit c and ive known hundreds die of heart attacks/strokes never known anyone die of bleeding after aspirin,very very rare, lowers bp, makes you feel good,reduces anxiety new studies better than most, anxiety drugs , they live longer,its a wonder drug .ive done a study and 100 percent of people on bp meds over 70 years of age die,and 100 percent not on them do, thats a good study lol, ive published that one as well,
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Blood pressure monitors need to be recalibrated
Losartan 50mg
white coat syndrome 
How low can you go ? Blood pressure GP policy and general guidance
I'm Really Terrified Because Many Studies Show High Blood Pressure With Coronavirus Has Highest % Of Death Rates!
