Heart Disease Fibromyalgia High Cholesterol Danger? Toxic Metals Free Radicals -- Primer IV Chelation Therapy Wrong Diet Causes Diabetes	Vibrant Life Home Web Family Of Three Oral Chelation Formulas The Wednesday Letter The Hubbard Human Detoxification Program Hopeless Diseases -- Invented to Sell Drugs Wrong Relationship Cause of Disease Brain Chemical Imbalance Dr. Garry F. Gordon	Ultimate Resource On Chelation Therapy Home Page Shopping Cart	Separate Search Page or search below
Prevent Cancer	Oral Chelation Therapy Other	Karl Loren's Policy On Psychiatric Drugs Destruction Of American Education	Write To Karl Loren	Table Of Contents

FALSE IMPORTANCE OF SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE IN OLDER AMERICANS

Source

More than 25 years ago I stumbled on a major "truth" about heart disease -- I discovered that the constant barrage of claims that "cholesterol" was the cause of heart disease -- was wrong.

I wrote on that subject, those 25 years ago and my article was the front page headline for a national newspaper. I claimed then that "high cholesterol is NOT a risk factor for death from heart disease!" Since then I have done thousands of more hours of research, written a book about heart disease, and published many pages on this exact same subject. The main current page is here.

I then discovered that "plaque" is not located where the cardiologist has been claiming that it was located.

These two landmark revelations by me have made some dents in the false information being deliberately spread by drug companies in order to sell their cholesterol-lowering drugs -- such as Lipitor.

In modern times, in August 2005, I have uncovered another hidden false datum -- of even greater magnitude than that about cholesterol or about plaque.

I announce my findings on this HERE, on this page, for the first time in public. I sent out a reference to THIS page in my weekly free electronic newsletter, published on August 10, 2005.

For decades doctors have measured your blood pressure by getting "two numbers." One is the systole or upper number in the set of two. The other number is called the distole, or the lower number in the set. The article below tries to show that it is the upper number which is more significant in measuring blood pressure.

Yet, some years ago, only the distole number was used as the measure of blood pressure! How did this change? Is the change valid? What are the consequences of that change?

To answer the last question first, the consequences are that some number of people are now being convinced to take blood pressure drugs which will increase their chance of death from heart disease.

Many others are worried about blood pressure rates that are false reasons to worry.

While cholesterol-lowering drugs are the number one sellers among all drugs, there are probably more people taking blood pressure pills based on false information than take the cholesterol-lowering drugs. So, it is actually bigger business for the drug companies to promote the false information about blood pressure.

All in all it is a mess.

I hardly know how to present this information -- there will be practically no person with any credentials who will agree with me -- no doctor, certainly.

I've not yet decided HOW to publicize this information, but for now I just want to announce my conclusions and the area of the research I've done. For now there will be only a few people I am willing to share this information with -- for too long unsroupulous individuals have copied the information from my 100,000 pages and then copied my vitamin formulas, and always altered the formulas to make them cheaper and less workable.

Many people come to my 100,000 pages to get the "free information" and then go to these cheap people to buy worthless remedies. There must be some change to that immoral practice.

This page begins a new era of Karl Loren publications -- I have one of the most significant breakthroughs in my history of research. I tell you the conclusion, but not the reasoning behind that conclusion. You will start to see my conclusion on other webs, but undoubtedly without the depth of research and data which I have available.

I advise you to accept my conclusion and deal exclusively with Vibrant Life for the type of products we sell -- you will not find comparable products anywhere else. If you find comparable information elsewhere, then it was probably copied from my pages, researched and published by me over the past 25 years.

Karl Loren

_______________________________________________________

CLINICAL ADVISORY STATEMENT:

IMPORTANCE OF SYSTOLIC BLOOD PRESSURE IN OLDER AMERICANS

Joseph L. Izzo Jr., Daniel Levy, Henry R. Black

This clinical advisory statement from the Coordinating Committee of the National High Blood Pressure Education Program is intended to advance and clarify the recommendations of the Sixth Report of the Joint National Committee on the Prevention, Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Pressure (JNC VI, 1997).¹ The advisory addresses several interrelated issues about blood pressure (BP) that affect people approaching the later decades of life. On the basis of the wealth of currently available evidence, the committee now recommends a major paradigm shift in urging that systolic BP become the major criterion for diagnosis, staging, and therapeutic management of hypertension, particularly in middle-aged and older Americans.

Several lines of strong evidence support the initiative to emphasize systolic BP. Pathophysiologically, there are strong associations among aging, increased stiffness of large arteries, increased systolic BP, increased pulse pressure, and the prevalence of cardiac and vascular disease. Epidemiologically, isolated systolic hypertension is the most common form of hypertension and is present in approximately two thirds of hypertensive individuals >60 years of age. Diagnostically, classification and staging of hypertension are more precise when systolic rather than diastolic BP is used as the principal criterion. Risk stratification for major complications of hypertension (stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, and kidney failure) is actually confounded by the use of diastolic BP; in older people with systolic hypertension, diastolic BP is inversely related to cardiovascular risk. Clinical benefits of treatment of isolated systolic hypertension include reductions in stroke, myocardial infarction, heart failure, kidney failure, and overall cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality.

Currently, only 1 in 4 Americans with hypertension falls below JNC VI-recommended values of 140/90 mm Hg in uncomplicated hypertension or 130/85 mm Hg in individuals with kidney disease or diabetes. Hypertension control rates are poorest in older people, primarily as a result of inadequate systolic BP control. The Coordinating Committee believes that achievement of optimal cardiovascular health in the United States requires a new nationwide initiative to improve our current low rates of systolic BP control. In addition to the recognition of the preeminent role of systolic BP in the management of hypertension, the strategic value of risk stratification and the clinical benefit of vigorous BP management at all ages are reemphasized. The use of age-adjusted BP targets is discouraged.

Current Perspectives in BP Control and Cardiovascular Risk Management

Of the 50 million Americans with hypertension in the United States, only about half are currently treated with antihypertensive drugs and only about a quarter have BP values below the targets of 140 systolic and 90 mm Hg diastolic.² Achievement of BP goals is even poorer in older Americans. In hypertensives >70 years of age, 25% of African Americans and 18% of white Americans have achieved the BP goals recommended by JNC VI. ³ These data reveal that clinicians may be willing to treat hypertension but still do not achieve desired goals. Systolic BP is almost always less well controlled than diastolic BP, even in clinical trials, in which aggressive management is required. In the Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT) and the Hypertension Optimal Treatment (HOT) trial, diastolic control rates exceeded 90%, whereas systolic control rates were less than 60%.^4,5

As the US population ages, the burden of uncontrolled systolic hypertension will take an increasing toll on the health and well-being of our society and will contribute to unnecessarily high healthcare costs. Inadequate reduction of systolic BP and dismal systolic BP control rates are causally related to a variety of adverse outcomes. For example, systolic hypertension is the most prevalent risk factor in heart failure,⁶ and clinical trials have demonstrated unequivocally that control of systolic hypertension prevents the development of heart failure.⁷ Other major cardiovascular disease end points such as stroke and kidney failure also track closely with systolic BP, and in kidney disease, it is clear that lower pressures are associated with better outcomes.⁸ Systolic hypertension interacts with other major risk factors such as hypercholesterolemia and diabetes, which also increase in prevalence with age, to amplify the age-related risk of cardiovascular events.⁹

All high-risk populations benefit markedly from vigorous BP control. ¹⁰ The importance of vigorous BP control in diabetics is the subject of a companion Clinical Advisory Statement.¹¹ In all high-risk groups, the number needed to treat to demonstrate benefit (which is reflective of the absolute benefit of treatment) is substantially lower than that in lower-risk groups. In addition to better BP control, aggressive management of other common risk factors such as hypercholesterolemia and glucose intolerance are required to achieve optimal cardiovascular benefit at any age.

Age and Pathogenesis of Systolic Hypertension

Systolic BP increases steadily with age in industrialized Western societies, whereas diastolic BP increases until about age 55 and then declines ² (Figure 1). Pulse pressure (systolic-diastolic BP difference) therefore widens with age.^12,13 Age-related changes in BP are manifestations of a generalized process of increasing arterial stiffness (or decreasing compliance) that results from the progressive replacement of elastin by collagen in the walls of large arteries. ¹⁴ This process of diffuse arteriosclerosis leads to dilatation and lengthening of the aorta and its immediate branches via fibrosis and hypertrophy of the arterial muscularis. Arteriosclerosis inevitably accompanies aging in Western societies, but its development is clearly accelerated by the presence of hypertension and the age at which it is expressed varies with the degree of BP elevation.

Arteriosclerosis can be differentiated pathophysiologically from atherosclerosis, which is primarily related to the effects of abnormal cholesterol oxidation and deposition in the inner layers of large arteries. Atherosclerosis begins as endothelial dysfunction and macrophage uptake of oxidized lipids into the vessel walls and is accelerated by the coexistence of hypertension. It evolves into a patchy, chronic inflammatory process that includes varying degrees of complexity and rupture of cholesterol-laden plaques and eventually, local vascular occlusion or distal embolization. ¹⁵

Because of their close relation to arteriosclerosis, both systolic BP and pulse pressure are reliable markers of age-related vascular target organ damage. Pulse pressure, although slightly more robust than systolic BP as a risk indicator, is considerably less straightforward to use clinically than systolic BP, and it has not yet been validated as a surrogate end point for morbidity or mortality in a prospective randomized clinical trial. Accordingly, this statement focuses on systolic BP rather than pulse pressure.

Systolic Hypertension: Prevalence, Diagnostic Value, and Risk Stratification

The prevalence of hypertension increases with age, with systolic hypertension becoming far more common than diastolic hypertension. In the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) study, isolated systolic hypertension (systolic 140 with diastolic <90 mm Hg) was present in 65% of all hypertensives >60 years of age, whether male or female.¹⁶ The accuracy of diagnosis and staging of hypertension according to JNC VI guidelines is markedly improved by using systolic rather than diastolic BP. Applying JNC VI definitions of hypertension (stage 1 hypertension: BP 140 systolic or 90 diastolic, stage 2 hypertension: 160 systolic or 100 diastolic, stage 3 hypertension: 180 systolic or 110 mm Hg diastolic) to the Framingham cohort, those with high normal BP or hypertension, who were potential candidates for antihypertensive therapy, were correctly classified by systolic BP alone 91% of the time. In contrast, correct BP classification occurred in only 22% of these individuals when diastolic BP was used alone.¹⁷

Systolic BP and pulse pressure are closely related independent cardiovascular disease risk factors^13,18 that yield similar diagnostic and prognostic information. It has been known since the early reports from Kannel and colleagues¹⁹ at the Framingham Heart Study that systolic BP is more robust than diastolic BP as a cardiovascular disease risk factor, a phenomenon recently emphasized by Dustan. ²⁰ More recent data from Framingham clearly reinforce the prognostic significance of elevated systolic BP and wide pulse pressure as independent risk factors.¹³ In people >60 years of age, when systolic BP is >120 mm Hg, diastolic BP is inversely related to cardiovascular disease risk.¹³ Thus, an individual whose BP is 160/70 is at greater risk than an individual whose BP is 160/100 mm Hg.

The preeminent value of systolic BP in risk prediction is even more convincingly demonstrated in 12-year data from >316,000 men screened for MRFIT.⁴ As demonstrated in this large cohort (Figure 2), coronary heart disease death rates were almost linearly related to systolic BP at all levels of blood pressure. In MRFIT, increased cardiovascular disease risk in those with systolic BP <140 mm Hg was found only when diastolic BP exceeded 100 mm Hg.⁴ With respect to the risk of renal failure, the MRFIT database revealed that although both systolic and diastolic BP were important, systolic BP was the more precise risk indicator. ²¹

Clinical Trial Benefits of Systolic BP Control

Compelling data from 2 large clinical trials directly demonstrate the benefits of treating isolated systolic hypertension (Table). The SHEP (Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program) study,²² a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized trial, investigated the value of thiazide diuretic-based treatment in 4736 individuals > 60 years of age with isolated systolic hypertension (initial BP values 160 mm Hg systolic and <90 mm Hg diastolic). After 5 years of therapy, active treatment with diuretic, with or without beta-blockers, reduced average systolic BP values »14 mm Hg more than placebo, with an overall systolic BP reduction from 171 to 142 mm Hg. Compared with placebo, those randomized to diuretic treatment had marked reductions in the rates of myocardial infarction (–27%), heart failure (–55%), and stroke (–37%), as well as exhibiting trends toward improvement in depression and dementia scores. A large randomized European trial of isolated systolic hypertension (Syst-EUR) used dihydropyridine calcium antagonist-based therapy and found reductions in systolic BP and cardiovascular outcomes similar to those in SHEP. ²³

Optimal Control Strategies: BP Targets and Drug Effects

Epidemiological data demonstrate that cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality is roughly proportional to systolic BP across a very wide range of BP values. Thus, from the perspective of early treatment and disease prevention, the systolic BP target of 140 mm Hg that has been established from observational data remains fully justifiable. From the perspective of treatment of those with established hypertension, however, the question of how low to go remains open. If therapeutic benefit in systolic hypertension follows the observational data, the greater the decrease in BP, the less the risk. SHEP and Syst-EUR demonstrated that lowering systolic BP <160 mm Hg is markedly beneficial,^7,22 but no trial has directly measured the degree of additional benefit that would occur at a systolic BP target <140 mm Hg.

Also currently unanswered is the question of whether all antihypertensive drug classes confer equal benefit or whether some agents offer therapeutic benefits beyond BP control. In isolated systolic hypertension, JNC VI recommended diuretics and calcium antagonists for isolated systolic hypertension, with diuretics preferred because of the convincing clinical trial data indicating protection against myocardial infarction, heart failure, and stroke. A recent study, the second Swedish Trial in Old People with Hypertension (STOP Hypertension-2), was conducted in individuals with stage 3 hypertension whose pretreatment and posttreatment BP values were 190/100 and 160/80 mm Hg, respectively. ²⁴ No additional benefits were claimed for "newer" drugs (low dose angiotensin-converting enzyme [ACE] inhibitors or calcium antagonists) compared with a standard diuretic-beta-blocker regimen, but the data showed ACE inhibitors to be superior to calcium antagonists (23% better against myocardial infarction and 22% better against heart failure). The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation (HOPE) trial, carried out over a period of 4 years in >9000 high-risk individuals >60 years of age, reported that ACE inhibition reduced the combined incidence of myocardial infarction, stroke, and death by 22%.²⁵ The authors found that ACE inhibition conferred equal benefit in both hypertensive and normotensive individuals when compared with placebo and suggested that the small BP decreases that were observed (3/2 mm Hg) could not fully account for the cardiovascular benefits of ACE inhibition. In HOPE, however, BP measurements were sporadic and unstandardized. The attractive possibility of enhanced benefits with certain antihypertensive drug classes therefore remains open.

Recommendations

In any form of hypertension, the primary goal is to lower BP by using any approved antihypertensive agent that is effective, well tolerated, and appropriate for the spectrum of clinical conditions present in the individual under treatment. JNC VI clearly stated that individualized therapeutic strategies were most desirable and that the skill and judgment of individual clinicians were essential in achieving optimal outcomes. JNC VI was predicated on the idea of integrated management based on risk stratification. It highlighted the roles of comorbidities in the decision-making process and identified high-risk conditions in which clinical trial evidence has provided "compelling indications" for the use of certain drug classes. In isolated systolic hypertension, thiazide diuretics (with or without beta-blockers) and long-acting calcium antagonists are recommended on the basis of the results of SHEP and Syst-EUR. Lifestyle changes remain useful adjuncts in helping older patients achieve BP goals.

On the basis of the foregoing arguments, the Committee has specifically recommended: (1) Systolic BP should become the principal clinical end point for the detection, evaluation, and treatment of hypertension, especially in middle-aged and older Americans. (2) The importance of lifelong maintenance of BP <140/90 mm Hg is reaffirmed on the basis of the known favorable risk-benefit balance at this level. Foremost in this assertion is the need for early therapy as primary protection against target organ damage. It should also be recognized that BP control (especially systolic) remains valuable at any age, initial BP level, or duration of hypertension. (3) More stringent BP control is necessary to achieve optimal benefit in high-risk conditions. In hypertensives with diabetes, BP should be maintained <130/85 mm Hg and in hypertensives with kidney failure or heart failure, BP should be reduced to the lowest levels possible. (4) Age-adjusted BP targets are inappropriate, including the unsubstantiated but persistent clinical folklore that it is acceptable for systolic BP to be "100 + your age." (5) ACE inhibitors are recommended as agents that lower morbidity and mortality rates in older people, in whom systolic hypertension is most prevalent.

The vast majority of hypertensive individuals can achieve recommended BP targets without significant difficulty. It is acknowledged, however, that clinicians should proceed with caution in treating certain elderly individuals with long-standing severe systolic hypertension, in whom rapid lowering of BP may be difficult or possibly harmful. In brittle or truly resistant patients, it may be wise to allow longer periods of time to reach goal BP. Although it is reasonable to assume that partial BP control is preferable to none at all, it is also clear that "lower is better" in the vast majority of patients.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to thank Stanley Franklin MD, Michael Alderman, MD, Edward Frohlich, MD, and the members of the Coordinating Committee for their expert scientific and editorial criticisms and Edward J. Roccella, PhD, MPH, for his invaluable administrative support.

References

Table 1. Major Trials in Isolated Systolic Hypertension

	N	Age	Entry BP	Relative Risk Reduction (%)
				Stroke	CAD	CHF	All CVD
SHEP	4736	60	171/77	–33	–27	–55	–32
Syst-EUR	4695	60	174/86	–42	–26	–29	–31

SHEP indicates Systolic Hypertension in the Elderly Program²² ; Syst-EUR, European Trial in Systolic Hypertension⁷ ; CAD, coronary artery disease; CHF, congestive heart failure; and CVD, cardiovascular disease.

Figure 1. Systolic and diastolic BP by age and race or ethnicity for men and women over
18 years of age in the US population. Data from NHANES III, 1988 to 1991. ²

Text alternative for Figure 1 representing the data points of the line charts.

Figure 2. Relation of systolic and diastolic BP to death from coronary heart disease in the
Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial. Data compiled from more than 316,000 male screenees
followed for 12 years. Adapted from Neaton et al.⁴

Text alternative for Figure 2 representing the data points of the bar charts.

 

---

I promise to answer your message -- click here to send me a personal message Dear Karl,

---

SUBSCRIBE:  The Wednesday Letter is a free electronic monthly newsletter written and published by Karl Loren.  You can view more than 50 back issues of this publication by clicking here.  The Wednesday Letter subscription list is maintained on a secure server, no name is ever given or sold to anyone, and it is never used except for this Newsletter.  It is automatically published on the Tuesday night just before the first Wednesday of every month.  You can subscribe to this free monthly electronic letter by entering your eMail address and name below.  You will then automatically receive a request for confirmation, sent to whatever address you have entered.  If you do NOT receive this confirmation request, then you will not be subscribed.  There may have been an error with your address and you should resubmit.  The letter is never sent twice to the same address -- so you do not have to worry about a duplicate subscription.  When you receive this confirmation request you must reply to it, or your subscription will not become active.  No one can subscribe your name, and address, without you being notified, and if you get an unwanted notice of subscription you only need to DO NOTHING and the subscription will NOT be active.

REMOVAL:  You can remove yourself from the subscription list in several different ways.  Click here to read about this entire newsletter system.  Every edition of The Wednesday Letter is delivered to your address with YOUR name and address in view on the letter, with a link that allows you to remove THAT name from the subscription list.  If you try to send this removal message from an address different from the one you used to send in your original confirmation, then you will get a warning notice first, sent to the subscription address, asking you to confirm that you want to be removed from the list -- by replying to THAT request for confirmation, you will then be automatically removed.  Thus, no one else can unsubscribe you, from some other computer, without your knowledge.  But, if you send in the unsubscribe notice from the same machine used to receive the Letter, then the removal from the subscription list is automatic.

Personal Message:  When you send a personal message to Karl Loren, you will receive a personal reply as per his instructions.  Karl pledges that every personal message will get a personal answer. When you provide your mail address, we will send you free information including our free catalog and a cassette tape lecture by Karl Loren about heart disease, no charge, by mail, even if outside the US.  You can select particular information you would like to receive, along with the free cassette tape and catalog.

You can reach Vibrant Life in many ways, including by mail to Vibrant Life, 2808 N. Naomi St., Burbank, CA 91504.  Within the US and Canada, use the toll free number:  (800) 523-4521, the local number:  (818) 558-1799, the FAX:  (818) 558-7299, eMail to kimberly@oralchelation.com or any one of the hundreds of message forms throughout the 50 web sites.  Vibrant Life normally ships the same day we get an order.  There are message forms on each of the 100,000+ pages on this and other sites where you can communicate with Vibrant Life.  Check out our companion site, at:  http://www.oralchelation.net where Karl's 2000 page book is published.  Karl Loren is the author and webmaster for this BOOK, as well as for another web site about ORAL CHELATION.  His personal philosophical articles are at PHILOSOPHY. 

Copyright © May 20, 2008 6:24 AM by Karl Loren on behalf of Vibrant Life, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED.  Permission is granted for non-commercial downloading, copying, distribution or redistribution on two conditions:  One, that some form of copyright notice is included in every copy distributed or copied, showing the copyright belonging to Vibrant Life, Burbank, CA, at www.oralchelation.com . The second condition is that the material is not to be used for any purpose contrary to the purposes and objectives of this site.  This permission does not extend to materials on this site which are copyrighted by others.

---