I have been aware of the ASCOT study [Anglo Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial] for some time. In fact, it seems to have been spewing out results for the past 500 years or so. Maybe not quite that long but, boy, it sometimes seems like it.

(This article was written by Malcolm Kendrick, MD, author of the wonderful, eye-opening, paradigm-shifting book The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It .)

“[H]igh blood glucose in diabetes is NOT the cause of the pathology,” wrote Richard Moore, MD, PhD, professor and research scientist, and author of the book “The High Blood Pressure Solution”.

In other words, health problems associated with diabetes are NOT caused by high blood sugar. 

“[T]hiazide diuretics lower blood pressure because they get sodium out of the body (through the kidneys),” notes wrote Richard Moore, MD, PhD, professor and research scientist, and author of the book “The High Blood Pressure Solution”.

“[A blood pressure study called the ALLHAT study found that three newer blood pressure drugs] had far worse health outcomes than the original, cheap thiazide diuretics,” wrote Richard Moore, MD, PhD, professor and research scientist, and author of the book “The High Blood Pressure Solution”.

“As one author of the paper wrote, ‘We cant say whether the diuretics were better than—or not as bad as—the other groups of drugs.”

“Since it is well established that thiazide diuretics often cause diabetes, it well may be the later.”

“In my book, ‘The High Blood Pressure Solution’, you will find that [there] is no evidence that antihypertensive drugs save lives,” wrote Richard Moore, MD, PhD, professor and research scientist,

“[In fact,] the very best study ever done of drug treatment of 17,000 hypertensives over a five year period found ‘no overall reduction in death rate’ in those treated with drugs.”

In 1986, professor and research scientist, Richard Moore, MD, PhD, showed in his book “The K Factor: Reversing and Preventing High Blood Pressure Without Drugs”, that 95% of the cases of hypertension are due to a low ratio of potassium to sodium in the American diet.

“We did not emphasize it, but since you can’t repair a dietary deficiency with a synthetic chemical [a drug] this clearly indicated that drugs are not the answer for hypertension,” Dr. Moore noted.

Dr. Moore also notes that back in the 1980’s, the largest blood pressure drug study to-date at that time, which included “17,000 people over a 5-year period, demonstrated that lowering blood pressure with drugs had zero effect on over-all mortality!”

Women taking a diuretic plus a beta blocker were 21% more likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 15 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (134 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 18% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking a diuretic plus a beta blocker.

(YouTube videos are limited to 10 minutes, so I had to split the video into 2 parts.)

Women taking a diuretic plus an ACE inhibitor were 12% more likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 16 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (133 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 11% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking a diuretic plus an ACE inhibitor.

(YouTube videos are limited to 10 minutes, so I had to split the video into 2 parts.)

Women taking a diuretic plus a calcium channel blocker were 2.4 times MORE likely (136% more likely) to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 11 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (138 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 58% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking a diuretic plus a calcium channel blocker.

(YouTube videos are limited to 10 minutes, so I had to split the video into 2 parts.)

Women taking a calcium channel blocker were 74% MORE likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 10 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (139 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 43% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking a calcium channel blocker.

Women taking an ACE Inhibitor were 4% MORE likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 12 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (137 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 4% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking an ACE Inhibitor.

Older, hypertensive women taking a diuretic were 9% MORE likely to die of cardiovascular disease during a 5.9 year follow-up than similar women taking NO blood pressure medicines even though the average systolic pressure was 13 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (136 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg) according to a 2004 study.

Let me say this the other way.

Women, 50- to 79-years-old with high blood pressure and no history of cardiovascular disease who were NOT taking any drugs for blood pressure were 8% LESS likely to die of cardiovascular disease during a 5.9 year follow-up than similar women taking a diuretic even though the average systolic pressure of the women taking NO blood pressure medicines was 13 points HIGHER than those taking a diuretic. (149 mm Hg vs 136 mm Hg)

(YouTube videos are limited to 10 minutes, so I had to split the video into 3 parts.)

Women taking a beta blocker were 15% less likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking NO blood pressure medicines according to a 2004 study.

The average systolic pressure was 11 points LOWER in the drug group than the no drug group (136 mm Hg vs 149 mm Hg).

To say this the other way, women taking women taking NO blood pressure medicines were 17% MORE likely to die of cardiovascular disease during the 5.9 year follow-up than women taking a beta blocker.

(YouTube videos are limited to 10 minutes, so I had to split the video into 2 parts.)

The belief that “the higher your blood pressure, the higher your risk of death, and the lower your blood pressure, the lower the risk of death” is WRONG.

This according to a brilliant paper from UCLA statistician, Sid Port, PhD.

The belief that “the higher your blood pressure, the higher your risk of death, and the lower your blood pressure, the lower the risk of death” is WRONG.

This according to a brilliant paper from UCLA statistician, Sid Port, PhD.

The belief that “the higher your blood pressure, the higher your risk of death, and the lower your blood pressure, the lower the risk of death” is WRONG.

This according to a brilliant paper from UCLA statistician, Sid Port, PhD.

The belief that “the higher your blood pressure, the higher your risk of death, and the lower your blood pressure, the lower the risk of death” is WRONG.

This according to a brilliant paper from UCLA statistician, Sid Port, PhD.

[A statement made in a editorial about the blood pressure drug Cozaar (losartan)] is “disturbing.” …

“The authors seemingly want us to believe… [this] deceptive statement.”

-- Franz Messerli, MD, European Heart Journal, 2003.

The blood pressure medicine “… Cozaar [losartan]… [reduced strokes by 40%, but] did NOT reduce [heart attacks]....”

Between Cozaar and the beta blocker atenolol, Cozaar, some might argue, is only the lesser of two evils.

— Franz Messerli, MD, European Heart Journal, 2003.

“… beta blocker therapy has been shown to cause… weight gain… and to significantly increase the risk of developing diabetes.”

— Franz Messerli, MD, European Heart Journal, 2003.

“… [In] patients over the age of 60, beta blockers did NOT reduce [heart attacks], cardiovascular mortality or [the total risk of death].”
— Franz Messerli, MD, European Heart Journal, 2003.

... [T]he risk of strokes was between two and four times higher in middle-aged patients on [the beta blocker] atenolol compared to [a diuretic].

— Franz Messerli, MD, European Heart Journal, 2003.

People given beta blockers were 10 to 24 times more like to dropout of studies due to fatigue, and 5 times more like to dropout of studies due to sexual dysfunction.

Beta blockers only prevent one stroke per year out of every 1400 patients given these drugs.

They only prevent one heart attack per year out of every 1400 patients given these drugs.

And they only prevent one death per year out of every 2500 patients given these drugs.

This was noted in a Letter to the Editor in JAMA by Franz Messerli, MD who has written several papers about the ineffectiveness of beta blockers.

Blood pressure medicine called beta blockers increase the risk of suicide by 60 percent as noted in a Letter to the Editor published in the Journal of the American Medical Association.