The Black Liszt

Be Healthy and Don't Schedule Your Heart Health Visit

As I write this, it's Valentine's Day and my doctor is after me! Valentine's Day is all about hearts getting together, so it makes sense that my heart should be healthy and ready for whatever comes along, right? I found this email in my inbox:

Awww, it's American Heart month too...

They even took the trouble to make a pretty graphic, with lovers getting together, hopefully with healthy hearts:

What are these numbers they're talking about?

Ah, so it's those nasty numbers you hear about so often: blood pressure, glucose and cholesterol. Oh well, who wants to die of a heart attack? Not me! Let's see what I'm in for.

They talk about the three numbers I've got to know.

All the major authorities agree that high blood pressure is a horrible thing that must be measured regularly and controlled. They really want us to be healthy -- that number of 120 was just lowered to that about 6 years ago from the 140 number it had been for many years. A huge number of people take blood pressure medications to control the pressure and get the number down.

But there's a problem. Not only is hypertension NOT a disease, taking the pills more than doubles your chances of going blind. The more "routine" side effects of the pills can be awful, even harming the heart. And they don't even help you live longer!

Let's hope the next number is worth checking.

With rare exceptions, measuring this is a way of telling how far you are to having diabetes. Which is mostly caused by bad diet and life habits a.k.a. being fat. So what does the doctor do? Maybe they'll talk about that. But the usual practice is to put you on a drug.The data shows that almost no one is helped and that a large number taking drugs are harmed.

Now we've gotten to the last number, the most mysterious of all, the one about "bad" cholesterol.

Like blood pressure, this is one where ALL the medical authorities are united: it's bad and you've got to do something about it -- basically take pills.

There's just one little problem: taking the pills and lowering your cholesterol does NOT help you. It does help pharma -- to the tune of billions of dollars. But you? Nope, sorry. And let's not talk about the fact that serious side effects are experienced by something like 10% of the people who take the pills, and that it demonstrably (by the numbers), shortens the life of women. See this for the numbers, facts and studies that demonstrate this, studies that have never been refuted.

Is it just my provider? No, they're all into it. I got this random email from ZocDoc, a place that tries to "help" you find a doctor and make appointments:

They're all in on it.

Conclusion

I admit it's hard to think that all these prestigious doctors and major institutions could be so wrong. But this isn't an exception. A massive study on hundreds of thousands of people has shown that checks of this kind -- including these specifically -- do not help people live longer, healthier lives. See this for context and summary, and this for the study itself.

There are many wonderful, health-making things doctors can do to help patients. The items mentioned in these Valentine's Day emails don't happen to be among them.

Be Healthy And Don't Schedule Your Annual Wellness Visit

It came again. Of course it did. It always does. What came?

The polite command to get into my doctor for what used to be called a "physical" and now most often is called something like an "annual wellness visit." Why do I have to visit a doctor to "make sure you're up-to-date on all health checks and screenings?" Simple: we patients don't care about our own health and fail to track elementary things. So we need to be told and then have our arms twisted to submit to various forms of testing. It's important -- early detection saves lives!!

What's included?

Here's what was in my annual thingy, which is probably similar to the one you got:

Draw some blood. Ask how depressed you are. Check whether you're had all the covid and other shots you're supposed to get. Colon cancer is terrible -- make sure you've had the colonoscopy you're supposed to have!

It's interesting that I also sometimes get something like this from my medical insurance company. It costs them money -- why would they send me to the doctor? I guess they really care -- or maybe they think prevention will be cheaper than cure. That seems to be what everyone thinks.

Houston, we've got a problem

Let's step back. Why this emphasis on health checking? It wasn't a big deal decades ago. Has something happened?

You bet something has happened. In spite of all the things pushed by public medicine, it's getting worse instead of better. Here are some highlights.

U.S. life expectancy fell to 76.4 years in 2021, the lowest since 1996, erasing a quarter-century of progress. By the end of 2021, the life-expectancy gap between the U.S. and Germany had widened to 4.3 years, and between the U.S. and France to six years.

...

The U.S. 2020 death rate from overdoses of 277 per million compared unfavorably with ... Germany’s 19 per million, and France’s 7 per million.

...

Between 2000 and 2020, the rate of obesity in the U.S. has risen from 30.5% to 41.9%. It is now the highest of any developed country and a stunning 10 times the rate in the lowest, Japan.

This is awful! No wonder we're getting harangued about getting to the doctor's office -- we're getting sicker and dying younger! Better do something about it!

What good does this checking do?

Has anyone run a trial to see if this massive testing and prevention actually makes anyone live a longer, healthier life? You'd think it would -- after all, doing sensible things like preventing getting too cold i

n the winter seems like it's better than trying to fix frost-bitten fingers and toes. It turns that many such trials have been run! And there's even a meta-analysis of all the trials, involving over 182,000 patients! Let's see what was discovered:

(NNT = Number Needed to Treat, i.e., the number of people who need to be treated in order for a single person to benefit. For more see this and this.)

Here are the highlights:

This Cochrane Collaboration review compared health checks, defined as “screening general populations for more than one disease or risk factor in more than one organ system,” to no health checks in a general, non-geriatric adult population. The authors included 14 trials of 182,880 subjects, testing three outcomes primarily: overall mortality, cardiovascular mortality, and cancer-related mortality.

Nine trials found no difference in overall mortality (7.4% in the intervention group and 7.5% in the control groups) with no observed heterogeneity across studies. Subgroups included less than or greater than five year follow up, old versus recent trials, USA versus European cohorts, and others, with no differences noted.

Health checks also failed to improve cardiovascular-specific mortality in eight trials, at 3.8% in the intervention group and 3.7% in the control group, though heterogeneity for this comparison was substantial. This was attributed to varying definitions of cardiovascular disease (myocardial infarction, stroke, etc).

For cancer-specific mortality rates were 2.1% in both intervention and control groups with moderate heterogeneity.

For secondary outcomes no difference was found in morbidity, hospitalizations, disability, physician visits, specialist referrals, absence from work, or patient worry, however there was a slight increased sense of self-health among those assigned to checkups.

You would think that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. There's no doubt that preventing getting cold is better than recovering from frostbite, but apparently it's not the same for medical testing.

What's being checked?

Everyone's list is probably a bit different, but let's check out the one I got as a typical wellness list as shown above.

First on the list was cancer screenings.

• Breast cancer. Getting a mammography seems to make sense, since catching something early sounds like a good idea. Bottom line: no one has a longer life because of the tests and lots of people are hurt by them. See this.
  
• Colon cancer. It's a terrible disease. you don't want to get it. Colonoscopies are supposed to not only detect it early and even help prevent it. Good idea! Sorry, not a good idea. In spite of tens of billions a year spent on prevention, the only controlled trial ever conducted, a big multi-country one, clearly shows that colonoscopies do NOT help you live longer. See this for the facts.
  
• Cervical cancer. According to the National Cancer Institute, cervical cancer was only 0.7% of all new cancer cases and deaths in 2022. Most women who get it survive 5 years or more. It's a tiny fraction, for example of liver cancer. And the recommended test, for HPV, has huge numbers of false positives. Why is this even on the list?
  
• Lung cancer if you've been a smoker. There have been lots of trials, careful tests. People have tried safer methods of testing than X-rays.  They don't work. See this and this for the details.
  

Second was vaccinations.

• The one they mention is the "yearly flu shot." This may be the mostly highly promoted shot on the planet. Sadly, there is conclusive evidence from scientific studies, including the CDC, that flu shots do not help. The studies show that not only are flu shots useless, they are a bad idea for old people. See this for my review of the details.
  
• Here is a discussion of "efficacy" in vaccines and what it really means, with specific illustration of covid vaccines. Unless you go into NNT for benefits and harms, you won't understand vaccines.

Third amounts to a blood test.

• Blood pressure. Everybody seems to accept that so-called hypertension (a.k.a. high blood pressure) is a disease. A huge fraction of the population take pills to "control" it. Not only is hypertension NOT a disease, taking the pills more than doubles your chances of going blind. The more "routine" side effects of the pills can be awful.
  
• Diabetes. Type 2 diabetes is not a good thing. Often it can be controlled by losing weight. Drugs are often prescribed. The data shows that almost no one is helped and that a large number taking drugs are harmed.
  
• Cholesterol. High cholesterol in the blood is supposed to lead to heart attacks. Why not take pills to keep it down and live longer? Simple: random controlled trials conclusively show that not only doesn't reducing cholesterol help, the pills are actively harmful in serious ways. See this.
  

Bottom line: these things shouldn't be tested for or, worse, "cured."

Conclusion

If you've got a medical problem and need help, by all means contact your doctor! There may be preventative or screening things I haven't covered here that are valuable, particularly with inheritable conditions. But screening overall doesn't help as the study I quoted above shows, and the screening things I've covered here as examples are the most common, and the data shows they do more harm than good. Your health is ... owned by you -- own it! And get help when you need it.

The Value of Colon Cancer Screening

The health experts are united in proclaiming the importance of preventative health in general, and regular colonoscopies in particular. Get one so you can avoid dying of colon cancer! As is sadly all-too-usual, the colon cancer early detection campaign is propaganda to cajole people into putting lots of money into the pockets of doctors and health systems -- with no provable benefit to the patients who do their best to patiently put up with the pointless nonsense.

Do people who get colonoscopies avoid getting colon cancer? Yes, the vast majority of tested people avoid it; but then the vast majority of untested people also avoid getting it. Does getting colonoscopies as recommended help you live longer? All the authorities say it does, but the recently published RCT (random controlled trial) with over 80,000 subjects -- the ONLY such gold-standard trial EVER conducted -- shows that colonoscopies do NOT help the people who get them live longer.

It's no wonder that the medical-industrial complex has united to discredit this trial that threatens their revenue stream. Experts are speaking out, waving their arms wildly and pronouncing with deep-voiced authority that the trial is misleading. I guess all the people and organizations drinking from the fire hose of tens of billions of dollars a year in testing fees have been too busy to conduct a trial of their own to demonstrate that what they do actually helps people.

Colon cancer is a big deal

There is no doubt that colon cancer is something to be avoided, if at all possible. It's the fourth leading cause of cancer deaths, behind breast, prostate and lung cancer. Lots of people are diagnosed with it and die from it, according to the National Cancer Institute:

Getting colon cancer isn't a death sentence -- look at the survival rate above -- but we would all like to avoid getting it.

An ever-increasing number of people are screened for this terrible disease. According to the National Cancer Institute:

This adds up to over 16 million colonoscopies in 2019! The cost? Good numbers are hard to find, but it's probably in the range of $30 to $60 Billion dollars a year for screening.

The Voice of the Experts

Here is the summary recommendation of the U.S. Preventative Services Task Force:

The Grade A is primarily because the screening has "substantial net benefit." (Bold in the original.)

This organization has plenty of prestigious company in making this recommendation. For example, they say:

There is a general consensus that average-risk adults aged 50 to 75 years should be screened. The American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP),⁴² American College of Physicians (ACP),⁴³ American Cancer Society (ACS),⁴⁴ and the US Multi-Society Task Force (which includes the American College of Gastroenterology, American Gastroenterological Association, and American Society for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy)³¹ all recommend routine colorectal cancer screening in this age group, although specific recommended tests and frequency of screening may vary.

It's not just the big organizations. Doctors and health systems on the front lines pitch the same message. Mount Sinai hospital in New York City recently put up a strong pitch on the subject. They lead their long article with this:

Colonoscopy is one of those important, routine medical procedures that most people would rather avoid. But experts say the test is a highly effective tool for both preventing colorectal cancer and diagnosing it at an early stage.

Along with the American Cancer Society, they recommend that screening start at age 45.

The trouble is, when you read all this carefully, particularly the extensive review that led to the USPST report above, you find a complete lack of RCT's for the effectiveness of colonoscopies. Nothing but modeling and authoritative-sounding guessing.

Experts attack the skeptics

Every once in a while, someone pops up who says that colonoscopies don't do any good. Fortunately for concerned patients, the experts tend to jump on such baseless assertions and tear them apart with facts and sound reasoning. Most of the Mount Sinai article just mentioned is devoted to this. It says:

Those looking for an excuse to put off a colonoscopy might now point to a large study conducted in Europe and published in September 2022 in The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) that appeared to question the benefits of colonoscopies.

For some reason, the Mt Sinai article fails to give a link to the study in question, which is here. I guess they feel that readers don't need to waste their time, since Dr. Greenwald's  take-down is authoritative. It continues with this:

In this Q&A, Dr. Greenwald, Immediate Past-President of the American College of Gastroenterology, and Co-Chair of New York’s Citywide Colorectal Cancer Control Coalition (C5), discusses the recent study and why the value of colonoscopies remains unchanged.

Here's the man himself. He is a seriously authoritative-looking guy:

The NordiCC Study and the response of the Experts

The NordiCC study is the one described in the recent New England Journal of Medicine article that Dr. Greenwald tore apart in the Mt. Sinai article promoting colonoscopies. The study followed over 84,000 "presumptively healthy men and women 55 to 64 years of age drawn from population registries in Poland, Norway, Sweden, and the Netherlands between 2009 and 2014."

The article seems to support performing colonoscopies. Here's the conclusion of the Abstract at the beginning of the paper:

In this randomized trial, the risk of colorectal cancer at 10 years was lower among participants who were invited to undergo screening colonoscopy than among those who were assigned to no screening.

I guess Dr. Greenwald and others were concerned about the fact that the numbers weren't strong. The Mt. Sinai article said the study "appeared to question the value of colonoscopies." Dr. Greenwald is quoted by Mt Sinai as saying

This study, along with prior studies, shows that colonoscopy decreases your chances of getting and dying from colorectal cancer. Getting sick and dying from colorectal cancer—especially due to delayed screening—is real. Screening with colonoscopy saves lives.

Done!

The NordiCC Study

Why would multiple European national governments go the trouble and expense of such a massive trial if the value of colonoscopies had been conclusively proven? Hmmm. The answer is simple: colonoscopies are expensive and highly unpleasant, and there have been NO RCT's that show a causal relationship between getting them and avoiding getting and dying from colon cancer. So before taking on all the cost and trouble, those groups figured they'd better get some real evidence on the subject.

First, let's see what the expert from Mt Sinai drew from the study:

Most importantly, in the section of the study that analyzed people who actually had a colonoscopy, the risk of developing colorectal cancer decreased by 31 percent and the risk of dying from colorectal cancer decreased by 50 percent, which is huge.

Wow. Why would anyone be worried about the NordiCC study scaring people from getting a colonoscopy, when it has such a huge benefit -- and the doctor claims that in the US it is performed better, yielding even stronger preventative results!

When you read the NordiCC study itself, aided by understanding of the statistical tricks that are used to distort the results, a whole different message emerges. This is why the medical-industrial complex goes to great lengths to hide the truth.

In this case, the core trickery is a biased sub-group created from the group invited  to have a colonoscopy that they call an "adjusted per-protocol analysis." The other main tricks are widely used: reporting "efficacy" (relative risk); ignoring NNT (absolute risk); and endpoint selection (dying of cancer vs. dying of any cause).

Here is a brief summary of the real results of the trial by Dr's John Mandrola and Vinay Prasad. I have verified that this summary accurately reflects data in the NEJM paper (see Table 2 of the paper):

• Over 10 years of follow-up, an invitation to screening colonoscopy modestly reduced the risk of being diagnosed with colorectal cancer, but it did not significantly reduce the risk of dying from colorectal cancer. Survival from cancer was nearly identical in both groups.  And all-cause mortality was the same.

The specific numbers of the primary outcome:

• The chance of getting (diagnosed with) colorectal cancer in the invited group was 0.98% vs 1.2% in the usual care group. This represents an 18% reduction in relative terms, and an absolute risk reduction of 0.22% or 22 per 10,000.

• The chance of dying from colorectal cancer in the invited group was 0.28% vs 0.31% in the usual care group. This 10% reduction in relative terms amounted to a difference in 3 in 10,000 and did not reach statistical significance.

• In the invited group, 11.03% of patients died; in the usual care group, 11.04% of patients died.

Here is a key chart from the paper, showing the risk of dying from colon cancer. Note that the real data is a barely noticeable squiggle along the X axis at the bottom; most of the chart is a big blow-up of the bottom 1% of the Y axis.

The tiny difference (3 in 10,000) in dying of colon cancer was not statistically significant. And the most-important-of-all measure, all-cause death, was identical.

Those are the indisputable facts from the study itself.

The authors of the study did their best to fiddle with the results -- they declared themselves to be "disappointed" in the study results. They put their fiddling in the paper.

The most significant game they played involved the fact that 42% of the subjects who were invited to have a colonoscopy actually had one. They recalculated the results for just the people in the invited group who actually had the procedure, trying to get better results; in the study, they call this a "per-protocol analysis." This shows the desperation of the authors, since doing this violates all the randomness and invites a host of what statisticians call "confounding factors," exactly the thing that a RCT avoids by being random. Naturally, this improved the results. By a small amount.

The authors and all the establishment defenders of colonoscopies do the classic thing that people who want to promote a drug or procedure do to mislead patients: they focus on relative risk instead of absolute risk. Relative risk, often called "efficacy," makes you think that the procedure is terrifically effective. What do you think when you read that your risk of death is "decreased by 50 percent?" It's huge, right? See this post on vaccine efficacy for a detailed explanation. What most people care about is absolute risk, which is how likely it is that the feared thing will happen to you. This is sometimes called NNT (Number Needed to Treat), which is the number of people who have to undergo the procedure in order for just one of them to benefit.

The per-protocol analysis (the best case) showed the risk of dying from colon cancer to be 0.15% in the invited group and 0.30% in the control group. This is a 50% improvement in relative terms which sounds great!  But in real-life absolute terms, it's a different of 0.15%, which is 15 for each 10,000 people And again, the difference of dying from any cause between these two groups was effectively zero. Here is a detailed discussion of per-protocol fiddling and the results of a statistically sound approach, which reduces the statistical significance of the colonoscopy benefit to zero ... as shown in a table of the supplement of the NEJM study.

And then there are the harms. What can go wrong with a colonoscopy? The USPST, the government group quoted above that recently recommended that colonoscopies start earlier than before, at age 45, discusses them deep in the supporting material. They report: "Harms from screening colonoscopy have been reported in 67 observational studies (n = 27,746,669)." You have to read carefully, Here's what they report:

14.6 major bleeding events per 10,000 colonoscopies (95% CI, 9.4-19.9; 20 studies; n = 5,172,508) and 3.1 perforations per 10,000 colonoscopies (95% CI, 2.3-4.0; 26 studies; n = 5,272,600)

That is a high confidence result of harm based on millions of patients, vs. the nearly identical low-confidence results of benefit from the NordiCC study.

Conclusion

The authors of the NordiCC study wanted to find that colonoscopies are effective -- they say so! They did their best to slant the results and obscure the real results. Experts reporting on the study in the US cherry pick and criticize the slanted results and confidently proclaim that colonoscopies are essential to health and longevity, when the clear numbers in the published study of over 80,000 subjects show no such thing. This is yet another example of self-serving advice from a medical establishment that depends on trusting, gullible patients to keep the money rolling in. For more, read these posts about flu, diet, saturated fat, cholesterol and blood pressure.

Why do insurance companies jack up premiums to shell out big bucks for drugs and procedures that don't help?

 

Flu Shots Propaganda and Reality

The drumbeat happens every year, echoing far and wide: It's flu season! Protect yourself and others -- get a flu shot right away! Roughly half of the population heeds the message and gets the shot.

The reality of the flu and flu vaccines can be found, but it's elusive. Once you find out what's really going on, you can't help but wonder why public authorities and provider groups keep pounding everyone to take these shots.

What we're told about the flu and flu shots

I got an email from my primary care provider. Here was the attention-grabber:

And here was the lead paragraph:

They go on to give lots of detail in an FAQ.

It's pretty clear: get a flu shot and you won't get the flu. It's not just my medical group; they all seem to say it, along with major pharmacies like CVS. The FDA is equally clear: "A flu vaccine can be given to anyone who wants to avoid the flu (persons over 6 months of age."  The CDC pushes it hard:

The message is similar to "shovel the snow off your snowy walk, and you won't slip and fall." 

The flu is awful!

The CDC makes repeated strong claims about how awful flu is and how flu shots protect you from getting the flu. Surely those claims are backed by solid data, gathered by some of the more than 10,000 employees of that organization.

First, the CDC collects and presents highly detailed data about what they call the "burden" of flu, by which they mean the number of people made ill, hospitalized or killed by it. While the numbers vary from year to year, the totals are massive:

For example, for the last flu season entirely unaffected by Covid, here are the annual numbers from the CDC:

The overall burden of influenza (flu) for the 2018-2019 season was an estimated 29 million flu illnesses, 13 million flu-related medical visits, 380,000 flu-related hospitalizations, and 28,000 flu deaths (Table 1)

Huge, right? It makes sense that everyone should be protected against these consequences of the terrible disease of flu.

Let's dig a little deeper into those catastrophically bad outcomes. Again, we'll use the CDC's own data.

First, let's look at the flu disease burden by age. The CDC, quite sensibly, presents these next numbers as a rate per 100,000, so that you can get how likely the outcome is to actually affect you.

For little kids, age 4 and under, the rate of catching the flu is a whopping 15,238 per 100,000 -- about 15% of little kids got the flu! For people aged 5 to 64, it was in the range 7- 12,000 for most older kids and adults; less for those 65 and older. Lots of people get the flu, around 10%.

With so many people catching the flu, it makes sense that the flu shot is pushed by health authorities. It's not rare, it's widespread! The numbers back it up.

What about all those hospitalizations and deaths?

While getting the flu, going to the doctor and even getting hospitalized aren't great, the thing you really want to avoid is death.

So what happens after you get the flu? For the vast, vast majority, not much. For young kids and older adults, only 0.1% end up in the hospital, and for most it's less than half of that. Death? The death rate for adults 18 to 49 is 1.2 per 100,000. That's a rate of 0.001%. The rate for younger people is even lower.

How the the flu rank among the other causes of death? The CDC has the numbers.

Flu ranks number nine out of the top ten, about the same as kidney disease. Things like accidents, strokes and the ever-present heart disease and cancer are way more dangerous. And the chart says "flu and pneumonia," without getting specific. Chances are it's mostly pneumonia. From another CDC data table, I find that the rate of death due to suicide in 2019 was 14.5 per 100,000. So the chances of dying from the flu or pneumonia were about the same as killing yourself!

But wait! Something's wrong! The deaths per 100,000 are listed as about 13, while we learned from the CDC (table 2 above) that the flu deaths for kids and adults per 100,000 were only about 1 -- truly tiny!

Putting the death rate for kids and most adults into the chart above, the rate of dying of the flu is less than one tenth that of the least likely of the top ten, way under 1% of dying from one of the top two causes. For kids and most adults, dying of the flu is not even close to being a leading cause of death.

Old people and the flu

Let's read the stats about flu burden by age (table 2 above) more carefully. Go down to the bottom and look at the numbers for older people, 65 and over. Only 4% of older people get the flu (way less than other ages), but for those who do, the rates of hospitalization and death are dramatically higher. Roughly 10% of those who get the flu end up in the hospital and 10% of the hospitalizations result in death! That's a mortality rate of 40 per 100,000. So it's the old people dying of flu (and pneumonia) that puts flu into the top ten causes of death! Without the old people, not only would the flu death rate not make the top ten causes of death, it would be less than 10% of the bottom cause, kidney disease! And way lower than other things such as accidents and suicide.

Let's understand the death rate for old people. Yes, it's forty times larger than the rate for most younger people. Scary, right? But running out the numbers, 0.4% of old people are hospitalized due to flu, and 0.04% of old people die of the flu. That's according to the CDC. Here's a chart from the CDC's annual report (a PDF file) of the leading causes of death for older people:

See flu and pneumonia there on the left? Pretty low on the list of things for older people to be worried about.

The charts for younger people are also interesting. For ages 10 to 24, accidents, suicide and homicide cause more than two thirds of deaths, while flu is less than a percent. For adults aged 25 to 44, flu is one percent, while for ages 45 to 64, flu doesn't even make the chart.

What about the flu shots?

The CDC and the rest of the health establishment may flash warning lights with loud warning sounds about the flu and how we need protection from it, but we now know that the numbers aren't compelling. But getting a flu shot isn't a big deal. shouldn't we get it anyway so that we're protected against the flu?

Flu shots: the CDC

First, let's look at the CDC's own numbers. They went to the trouble of assembling patient panels so they could get good numbers. The numbers have increased over the years; the recent 2018-19 panels are over 10,000 people. Here is the chart from the 2018-19 panel for effectiveness of flu shot against by age:

This is tough to make sense of at a glance. First, look at the top line, for all ages. 2763 people got the flu -- and almost half of them (48%) were vaxed! Meanwhile, 7249 people were flu-free, with a bit over half (56%) vaxed. Clearly, the vax didn't make much difference.

The numbers for older people are interesting. As we saw above, people 65 and older are the least likely to get the flu but the most likely to be hospitalized or die from it. The table shows that the older were far more likely than the rest to be vaxed, over 80%. But the number vaxed was nearly identical in the groups with and without the flu. Let's dig in.

The last column, CI (confidence interval) will be mysterious to most people. The CDC has an explanation in its section on vaccine effectiveness  It's standard statistics. They give the effectiveness number based on a tiny fraction of the number of people who could get the flu. How likely is it to be the true value? The CI is the range of values it would be, with 95% statistical confidence. See the negative numbers in the far right for teens and adults age 50 and older? According to the CDC (and statistics in general) that means:

...if a confidence interval crosses zero, for example, (-20% to 60%), then the point value estimate of VE provided is considered “not statistically significant.”

Not only was the VE tiny, the number is effectively meaningless -- the flu vax could increase your chances of getting it, or decrease your chances. The CDC's main flu vax effectiveness ongoing study can't tell the difference! Which means ... getting the flu shot has no impact on whether you get the flu.

Flu shots: published controlled trials

There have been dozens of published controlled trials of flu vaccines in multiple countries. Reviews of the many trials have been conducted and published. This is an updated version published in 2018 of the prior review.

We included 52 clinical trials of over 80,000 people assessing the safety and effectiveness of influenza vaccines.

The effectiveness they found:

Inactivated influenza vaccines probably reduce influenza in healthy adults from 2.3% without vacination to 0.9% (risk ratio (RR) 0.41

"Risk ratio" is what is called the "efficacy" of the vaccine, normally reported as a percent; in this case it would be 41%. Most people when they read a number like that think it means they've reduced their chances of getting the flu by about 40%. Not so. Read the quote again: "2.3% of the unvaccinated got the flu, while 0.9% did get it." This means that most people didn't get the flu, whether vaxed or not. The study translates this into NNV (number to treat NNT, which is NNV for vaccines -- see this for an explanation)

71 healthy adults need to be vaccinated to prevent one of them experiencing influenza,

What about other consequences?

Vaccination may lead to a small reduction in the risk of hospitalization in healthy adults, from 14.7% to 14.1%

What do they conclude?

Healthy adults who receive inactivated parenteral influenza vaccine rather than no vaccine probably experience less influenza, from just over 2% to just under 1% (moderate-certainty evidence). They also probably experience less ILI following vaccination, but the degree of benefit when expressed in absolute terms varied across different settings. Variation in protection against ILI may be due in part to inconsistent symptom classification. Certainty of evidence for the small reductions in hospitalizations and time off work is low. Protection against influenza and ILI in mothers and newborns was smaller than the effects seen in other populations considered in this review. Vaccines increase the risk of a number of adverse events, including a small increase in fever, but rates of nausea and vomiting are uncertain. The protective effect of vaccination in pregnant women and newborns is also very modest. We did not find any evidence of an association between influenza vaccination and serious adverse events in the comparative studies considered in this review. 

Makes you want to run right out and get the shot, doesn't it?

Flu shots: Huge UK study on older people

There was a massive study in the UK on the extent to which getting flu shots helps older people. This is the background they give:

Observational studies using traditional research designs suggest that influenza vaccination reduces hospitalizations and mortality among elderly persons. Accordingly, health authorities in some countries prioritize vaccination of this population. Nevertheless, questions remain about this policy's effectiveness given the potential for bias and confounding in observational data.

They studied adults aged 55 to 75 in England and Wales during 2000 to 2014. Here is what they found:

The data included 170 million episodes of care and 7.6 million deaths. Turning 65 was associated with a statistically and clinically significant increase in rate of seasonal influenza vaccination. However, no evidence indicated that vaccination reduced hospitalizations or mortality among elderly persons. The estimates were precise enough to rule out results from many previous studies.

Flu shots: are they harmless?

The data says clearly that flu shots don't do much good. But it's no big deal to get one, it might help, so why not? It turns out there are good reasons to avoid getting the flu vaccine, based on how vaccines work and supported by data. The CDC even explains some it, buried away.

Let's start with a little-discussed fact: vaccines do not in themselves prevent anything. Everyone has an immune system. Immune systems are amazing things. They fight against a huge variety of invaders to the body, defeating the vast majority of them most of the time. What vaccines do is "trick" the immune system into strengthening its defenses against a particular invader by sending things that look like the real attackers, except they've been neutered. Here's the issue: immune systems don't have endless defensive "weapons," so increasing defenses against one thing means decreasing them for others. Also the defenders aren't endlessly energetic. If they've been mobilized against an attack that doesn't occur, they don't have as much energy for the next mobilization.

This means that if you trick the immune system into shifting weapons for a threat and a different one occurs, the defense against the real attackers isn't as strong. This happens every year with flu vaccines as the variants change and particularly older peoples' immune strength fades. It also happens with covid.

Here is a summary of the most important studies.

The CDC has claimed that influenza vaccines do confer this benefit to older people. However, to support that claim, the CDC relies on observational studies that have been discredited by the scientific community.

In fact, as observed in a 2005 study in Archives of Internal Medicine (which is now JAMA Internal Medicine), despite a considerable increase in vaccination coverage among the elderly between 1980 and 2001, pneumonia and influenza mortality rates actually rose substantially. A 2008 review in Virology Journal similarly observed that “influenza mortality and hospitalization rates for older Americans significantly increased in the 80’s and 90’s, during the same time that influenza vaccination rates for elderly Americans dramatically increased.”

The effect of influenza vaccines on influenza mortality—much less their effect on all-cause mortality—was never studied in clinical trials, and later studies showed that the studies relied upon by the CDC to support its claim were fatally flawed due to a selection bias known as “healthy user bias”. In short, it wasn’t that elderly people who got a flu shot were less likely to die that flu season but that elderly people who were so frail that they were likely to soon die were less likely to get a flu shot. As a 2006 article in the International Journal of Epidemiology observed, the magnitude of this demonstrated selection bias “was sufficient to account entirely for the associations observed”.

In other words, there is no good evidence to support the claim of a mortality benefit of influenza vaccination for elderly people.

Unlike some vaccines, flu vaccines don't seem to do much active harm to those who get them. However, they do little to no good, and getting them repeatedly weakens your immune system, making you more likely to get the disease you are supposedly protected from. The fact that as more elderly people get the flu shot the more of them die of the flu is unsettling, to say the least. Doesn't sound like a boat I'd like to jump on to.

Conclusion

Why does the entire health establishment keep banging away at promoting flu shots? What is it exactly that causes the medical establishment to heavily promote treatments that not only don't help but can seriously hurt you? Things like diet, cholesterol, blood pressure and flu? If your goal is to promote trust in government and medical health advice, this is the last thing you should be doing.

Does Vaccine Efficacy of 95% mean I won't get sick?

The Moderna and Pfizer Covid vaccines have 90-95% efficacy, but the studies submitted for their approval showed they helped only about 1% of the people who took them. This is news to most people. How can this be?

We are constantly told that vaccines are safe and highly effective, for example by the CDC. Numbers like 90% efficacy are thrown around, which most people understand to mean that getting vaccinated means there's only a 1 chance in 10 that you'll get sick. You're really protected!

What the CDC and major authorities fail to disclose is that standard statistical methods applied to the vax vendors' own data shows that only about one in a hundred people who get the jab would be protected from getting covid! The tests did indeed show 90% or better "efficacy" (relative risk improvement), but what's more relevant is "absolute risk" (AR), which their own data showed was around 1%.

Read on to understand these industry-standard measures that are mostly ignored; if widely understood and acted on, they would transform not just vaccines, but pharma and public health in general.

Winter Coats and Vaccines

Winter coats are a standard solution to protect people from getting cold when the weather outside is cold. Kind of like when the air is suffused with invisible vaccine particles, you want to help your body defend itself.

There are a wide variety of coats available to protect against the cold. What would happen to a new coat vendor that promoted its coats as being highly effective against the cold, protecting most people who wear them, but it turned out that the maker and seller knew that 99% of the people who wear them on a cold winter day wouldn't be helped by them -- word would get out quickly and the coat maker's reputation would be in the cellar.

What would happen if major authorities had subsidized the coat making, regulated their testing, and then promoted them as "safe and effective?" And then what would happen if all the authorities demanded that you buy and wear the coats, to the point refusing to let you enter a football stadium on a cold day unless you were wearing one of the approved coats? There would be mass revolt. Which is what would have happened with covid if people knew the facts that were so carefully concealed from them.

When locations like restaurants and performance halls opened, authorities in places like New York City declared that only people with proof of vaccination would be admitted. People were eager to eat out and be entertained, so this was another reason to get the jab. Vaccination cards were checked on entry so that everyone could be "safe."

While covid is the most current example of this grotesque propaganda/misinformation, it is all too common in healthcare and pharma, as I have shown for example here for saturated fat, here for cholesterol and here for hypertension. What's new in covid is the level of coercion involved.

Relative risk, absolute risk and Number Needed to Treat (NNT)

The widely used number for a vaccine called "efficacy" is technically "relative risk" (RR). In scientific papers, it's typically a number like .05, which means that compared to the number of people who got sick without the vax, just .05 of the vaxed got sick. This is translated to saying 95% of the vaxed avoided sickness compared to the unvaxed who got sick. While technically true, it is NOT about your chances of getting sick or staying well. It means relative risk, which is how much better the vax is compared to those who had no vax and got sick, independent of the number of people in the study.

Let's go back to winter coats. When people go out in the cold, they put something on to keep warm. Sometimes the coat doesn't keep some of them warm enough. Suppose the august health authorities got real worried about people dying of the cold without adequate protection. Huge amounts of time and money were spent developing what the developers thought was a great winter coat. Never mind that, for various reasons, the vast majority of people weren't getting cold. They went to a northern football stadium near the end of play-off season (winter). They got everyone entering at half the entrance gates to wear their wonderful coat and everyone who entered at the other half to wear a fake, ineffective version of the coat (the placebo) on top of whatever they were already wearing. At the end of the game, they briefly interviewed and temperature-measured everyone who left, noting which version of the coat they wore.

Let's suppose that 20,000 people went to the football game, with 10,000 getting fancy new coats and the other 10,000 getting fake coats. Suppose 10 people wearing the fancy new coat got cold, while 100 people in the fake coat group got cold.

First let's calculate the number everyone talks about, efficacy, technically known as Relative Risk (RR). RR in this case is 100 minus 10 divided by 100 = 90% efficacy. The wonderful coat did much better when added to what people were already wearing, about ten times better than the fake coat (placebo)! This is the number everyone thinks means that 90% of the people who take the vax won't get sick. Except it doesn't mean that. The key to understanding that is that RR has NOTHING to do with the size of the group, the number of people getting poked.

So let's calculate Absolute Risk (AR). In this case, of the 10,000 in the fake coat (placebo) group, 100 got cold, which is 1 in 100, for an AR of 1.0%. Your chances of avoiding getting cold without the fancy coat were excellent -- 99 out of 100! For the 10,000 people in the fancy coat group, just 10 got cold, which is 1 in 1,000, an AR of 0.1%. The relative difference between the fake and real coats was truly big -- ten times! But the absolute difference means that 10,000 people had to get the fancy coat in order to avoid just 90 of them getting cold. The reduction in absolute risk was 1.0% - 0.1% = 0.9%.

How many people have to get the fancy coat in order for one to benefit? Scientists have a name for this. It's NNT: Number Needed to Treat, sometimes called NNTV (Number Needed To Vaccinate) when a vax is involved. While "efficacy" focuses on "relative" risk, NNT turns the absolute risk (AR) into a more relevant number -- of those getting the treatment, how many will benefit? In this case, all 10,000 football fans would have to wear the fancy coat so that about 100 wouldn't be cold, ignoring the 10 who got cold anyway. In other words, in order for one person to benefit, 100 people have to get the treatment, an NNT of 100. For the other 99, the fancy coat made no difference -- they would have been warm without it.

Getting back to reality, this means that the coats most people choose to wear protect them from getting cold remarkably well. Anyone surprised? What's the normal reaction to being in the stands and getting cold? Doing something to warm up! Jump up and down. Wave your arms. Drink a cup of hot cocoa. Get hugged. Sit on someone's lap, get wrapped in their coat. If worse comes to worse, leave for someplace warm. There are "treatments" that work just fine.

Why would anyone bother accepting and wearing the authorized coat on top of what they already have? In the vast majority of cases, they'll be fine without it, and there are things they can do if they start to feel cold. Not to mention the risk of side effects of the fancy new thing. Here and here are more detailed explanations with examples.

ARR and NNT for Covid

I used round numbers above to make sure the concept was clear. But the whole point is the real world. There is a wonderful scientific website that provides NNT's for many treatments, based completely on scientific studies. For example, here is their article on cholesterol-reducing statins. which makes it clear that no one should be taking these widely used but destructive drugs.

Let's turn to the NNT for covid. What's amazing about this is that the information about NNT for covid is hidden in plain sight. Let's look at the FDA's announcement of their EUA (Emergency Use Authorization) for the Pfizer covid vaccination. The FDA states:

The FDA has determined that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine has met the statutory criteria for issuance of an EUA. The totality of the available data provides clear evidence that Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine may be effective in preventing COVID-19. The data also support that the known and potential benefits outweigh the known and potential risks, supporting the vaccine’s use in millions of people 16 years of age and older, including healthy individuals.

Later in the same announcement, the FDA gives the details about how good the vaccine is. Here is the start of the key paragraph:

FDA Evaluation of Available Effectiveness Data 

The effectiveness data to support the EUA include an analysis of 36,523 participants in the ongoing randomized, placebo-controlled international study, the majority of whom are U.S. participants, who did not have evidence of SARS-CoV-2 infection through seven days after the second dose. Among these participants, 18,198 received the vaccine and 18,325 received placebo. The vaccine was 95% effective in preventing COVID-19 disease among these clinical trial participants ...

This gives the key point of (relative) effectiveness: it's 95% effective! Hooray, we've got it! See what happens when you keep reading:

... with eight COVID-19 cases in the vaccine group and 162 in the placebo group. Of these 170 COVID-19 cases, one in the vaccine group and three in the placebo group were classified as severe. At this time, data are not available to make a determination about how long the vaccine will provide protection, nor is there evidence that the vaccine prevents transmission of SARS-CoV-2 from person to person. 

First, let's look at the chance of getting covid without getting vaccinated; it's 162/18,325 = 1 in 113. Fewer than 1% of the placebo group got covid! And of those 162 cases, just 3 were classified as severe, so just 1 in over 6100 unvaxed people got severe covid. The numbers to achieve the benefit of vaccination aren't much different. The NNT is over 1 in 110 -- over 110 people had to take the vaccine for one person to avoid getting covid! Yes, the relative benefit is huge, but in absolute terms, less than 1% of people are actually helped by getting jabbed.

Note also that there was zero evidence that the vaccine prevents an infected person spreading the infection.

Is this the case only for Pfizer? A group of French scientists calculated ARR and NTT for the leading Covid drugs, based solely on the published studies of the trials of those drugs. Here is a summary and here is the study published in a scientific journal. It deserves much more attention than it seems to have gotten because of its focus on NNT.

Let's jump right to the key table.

The first drug, Pfizer, has a terrific efficacy (RR), listed there as 0.05, but normally reported as 95%. Everyone (including me, when I first saw it), thinks that means that taking the Pfizer vax means there's only a 5% chance of getting covid, right? It works great! Now look at the NNT, 141. That means that for each 141 people who are vaxed, just one benefits by not getting covid!! It makes common sense: there were 21,728 people in the control group (people who got shots that were placebos), and only 162 of them got covid,

You might think that relative and absolute risk are related, but the third drug, AstraZeneca, makes clear that they're not. AstraZeneca had efficacy (RR) of 0.30, normally reported as 70%, which is dramatically worse than Pfizer's -- why would anyone choose it? But AstraZeneca has an NNT of 83, which means that your chances of the AstraZeneca vax helping prevent covid were much better than the Pfizer vax. But even with the better NNT, chances are extremely high that you wouldn't get covid, with or without the vax.

The issues I describe here are not radical or new. The paper above was notable only in that it covered all the major covid vaccines; other doctors and scientists have publicly pointed out the same facts. For example, here is a note by a doctor published in the BMJ shortly after the trial results were first published.

Conclusion

After learning about efficacy, absolute risk and NNT, your understanding of what it means for a treatment to be "effective" changes radically. Absolute risk and NNT are at least as important. Authorities should discuss all these number prominently.

 

The Facts are Clear: Hypertension is not a Disease

The medical community, organizations and government agencies couldn't be clearer: hypertension (high blood pressure) is a silent killer. You may not feel anything wrong, but if you've got it, your risk of strokes and heart failure goes way up. Therefore it's essential to monitor and treat this deadly condition.

They're all wrong. Hypertension is not a disease that needs to be cured. It may be a symptom of a problem, but not a problem itself, just like fever is a symptom, not the underlying problem. By treating it as a disease and giving drugs to lower blood pressure, the medical establishment makes patients less healthy and raises costs substantially. With a few exceptions, we would all be better off ignoring blood pressure and most of the associated advice.

Drugs for "Curing" Hypertension

The single most prescribed drug in the US is for lowering cholesterol. But most prescriptions for a disease are to reduce blood pressure.

Here's the story with blood pressure pills.

In fact, a majority of the most prescribed drugs in the U.S. are used to treat high blood pressure or symptoms of it. That’s because 108 million or nearly half of adults in the U.S. have hypertension or high blood pressure.

Is Hypertension a Disease?

There is no doubt that blood pressure can be measured and that it varies greatly. What is hypertension? As I describe here, currently it's a systolic pressure reading above 120 (until 2017 it was above 140). There are lots of things you can measure about people. What makes this measurement bad?

There's a clue buried deep in Doctor-language, a clue that is nearly always missed -- but it's one that doctors with a basic education should know. The official name for high blood pressure is essential hypertension. What's that? Let's ask Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a long-experienced cardiologist:

At medical school we were always taught – and this has not changed as far as I know – that an underlying cause for high blood pressure will not be found in ninety per cent of patients.

Ninety per cent… In truth, I think it is more than this. I have come across a patient with an absolute, clearly defined cause for their high blood pressure about five times, in total, and I must have seen ten thousand people with high blood pressure. I must admit I am guessing at both figures and may be exaggerating for dramatic effect.

Whatever the exact figures, it is very rare to find a clear, specific cause. The medical profession solved this problem by calling high blood pressure, with no identified cause, “essential hypertension”. The exact definition of essential hypertension is ‘raised blood pressure of no known cause.’ I must admit that essential hypertension certainly sounds more professional than announcing, ‘oh my God, your blood pressure is high, and we do not have the faintest idea why.’ But it means the same thing.

Hypertension = your blood pressure number is high. Kind of like having a high temperature, which we call a "fever," right? Wrong. When you get a fever, doctors first make an effort to determine the cause of the fever! What an idea! The fever is a clue that something is wrong, not the problem itself! Here's the real, bottom-line clue: When you treat fever you treat the underlying cause e.g. bacterial infection, NOT the fever itself! If we treated fever the way we treat hypertension, we would give drugs whose sole purpose was to lower the body temperature, ignoring the underlying bacterial infection that caused the fever. Wouldn't do any good! Maybe we'd sweat less, but the bacteria would rage away inside our bodies. But high blood pressure? Doctors ignore the cause and "treat" the symptom, which can often do more harm than good -- except of course for the drug makers, who make out just fine.

Makes me sick.

Causes of hypertension

From Kendrick:

So, why does the blood pressure rise in some people, and not in others. It is an interesting question. You would think that, by now, someone would have an answer, but they don’t. Or at least no answer that explains anything much.

Just as fever is caused by an infection (or something else), could it be possible that hypertension results from some underlying problem? Kendrick again:

Looking at this from the other direction, could it be that cardiovascular disease causes high blood pressure. Well, this would still explain why the two things are clearly associated, although the causal pathway may not be a → b. It could well be b → a.

I must admit that I like this idea better, because it makes some sense. If we think of cardiovascular disease as the development of atherosclerotic plaques, leading to thickening and narrowing of the arteries then we can see CVD is going to reduce blood flow to vital organs, such as the brain, the kidneys, the liver, the heart itself.

These organs would then protest, leading to the heart pumping harder to increase the blood flow and keep the oxygen supply up. The only way to increase blood flow through a narrower pipe, is to increase the pressure. Which is what then happens.

Over time, as the heart is forced to pump harder, and harder, the muscle in the left ventricle will get bigger and bigger, causing hypertrophy. Hypertrophy means ‘enlargement.’ So, in people with long term, raised blood pressure, we would expect to see left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH). Which is exactly what we do see.

He goes on to give lots of detail about how this takes place, if you're interested.

Correlation and Causation

There's a little problem that everyone who knows about science and statistics is supposed to know. It's the difference between correlation and causation. Two things seem to happen at the same time. They are correlated. No problem. But does one of the cause the other? That's a whole other thing, and it's super-important. At McDonald's, burgers and fries are often seen together. They're correlated. Did the burger cause the fries? Fries cause the burgers? Nope. They're just listed together on the menu and lots of people like them together.

How about knife cuts and bleeding? Definitely correlated. Causation? By looking at repeated cases of knives making cuts, you can determine that putting a knife into someone's skin nearly always causes bleeding.

This is the problem at the heart of hypertension -- except perhaps in extreme cases, hypertension can be correlated with heart attacks and strokes -- but it can't be shown to cause them in the vast majority of cases.

The range of blood pressure

The authorities don't like to talk about this, but blood pressure varies HUGELY not just from person to person, but also by age and for a single person during the day!

Here's something to give you the idea from a scientific paper:

The range of pressure for a single person can be rather larger. I just took my pressure this morning. The systolic was 126. In the previous days the readings were 159 and 139.I have taken my pressure with different devices over a year, and that variation is not unusual. It can vary that much in a couple hours, depending on my activity level.

It is well-known in the medical community that blood pressure varies naturally with age, generally rising as you get older. Has anyone documented this statistically? If they have, I can't find it. Generally, what is normal is roughly 100 plus your age, so a 50 year old man would have 150, roughly 10 less for women. Here is an interesting description of the age factor from a former NASA astronaut and doctor.

The assumed causation fails to hold

A surprising amount of modern medical misinformation goes back to the diet-heart hypothesis put forward by Ancel Keys and supported by the seven countries study. It's what led to the obesity-causing fat-is-bad diet recommendations and the ongoing harm of reducing blood cholesterol using statins. Out of the same witch's brew came the notion that high blood pressure causes heart disease.This notion was supposedly locked down by the famous Framingham study, which continues to this day.

In the year 2000, the edifice crashed when a careful review was published in the journal of the European Society of Cardiology, "There is a non-linear relationship between mortality and blood pressure." It includes references to the original Keys study and many following journal articles.

The article is prefaced by a quote that is so appropriate, I can't help but share it with you:

"For every complicated problem there is a solution that is simple, direct, understandable, and wrong." H. L. Mencken

The authors start by explaining the current paradigm:

"the relation of SBP (systolic blood pressure) to risk of death is continuous, graded and strong..." The formulation of this "lower is better" principle ... forms the foundation for the current guidelines for hypertension.

They point out that Ancel Keys himself concluded that "the relationship of overall and coronary heart disease death to blood pressure was unjustified."

They went on to examine the detailed Framingham study data.

Shockingly, we have found that the Framingham data in no way supported the current paradigm to which they gave birth.

...

Systolic blood pressure increases at a constant rate with age. In sharp contrast to the current paradigm, we find that this increase does not incur additional risk. More specifically, all persons in the lower 70% of pressures for their age and sex have equivalent risk.

Cardiologist Kendrick in his recent book Doctoring Data points out

Has this paper ever been refuted? No, it has not. Sadly, it was given the worst possible treatment that can be dished out by the medical establishment. It was completely ignored.

...

The benefits of blood-pressure lowering, whatever the level, became so widely accepted years ago that it has not been possible, ethically,[viii] to do a placebo-controlled study for a long time. I am not aware of any placebo-controlled trials that have been done in the last twenty years, or so.

A bit of sanity

The same year (2017) the AHA and cardiologists were lowering the target blood pressure for everyone from 140 to 120, a group representing family physicians published an official guideline for treating hypertension in adults age 60 and over. Their method was rigorous, taking into account all available studies. Here is their core recommendation:

ACP and AAFP recommend that clinicians initiate treatment in adults aged 60 years or older with systolic blood pressure persistently at or above 150 mm Hg to achieve a target systolic blood pressure of less than 150 mm Hg to reduce the risk for mortality, stroke, and cardiac events. (Grade: strong recommendation, high-quality evidence).

What a breath of fresh air! And completely in line with this data-driven review that showed that a large number of people taking anti-hypertensive drugs just 1 in 125 were helped (prevented death), while 1 in 10 were harmed by side effects. Also in line with this careful study of people with elevated blood pressure in the range of 140-160; the study showed that none were helped by drugs, while 1 in 12 were harmed.

BTW, if you're not familiar with the concept of NNT, you should learn about it. It's crucial.

Hypertension Drugs can hurt you

Doctors dish out hypertension drugs like candy. It's often the case that two different kinds of drugs will be required to get your blood pressure to "safe" levels. For reasons that don't seem to be studied, it's rare indeed for doctors to mention side effects; yet in repeated studies, the generally data-suppressing researchers can help but mention that the side effects are so bad that roughly 10% of study participants drop out of the study! (See above for references.)

There are good lists of side effects at Drugs.com. Here's some information about Amlodipine:

Side effects requiring immediate medical attention

Along with its needed effects, amlodipine may cause some unwanted effects. Although not all of these side effects may occur, if they do occur they may need medical attention.

Check with your doctor immediately if any of the following side effects occur while taking amlodipine:

More common

• Swelling of the ankles or feet

Less common

• Chest tightness
• difficult or labored breathing
• dizziness
• fast, irregular, pounding, or racing heartbeat or pulse
• feeling of warmth
• redness of the face, neck, arms, and occasionally, upper chest

Rare

• Black, tarry stools
• bleeding gums
• blistering, peeling, or loosening of the skin
• blood in the urine or stools
• blurred vision
• burning, crawling, itching, numbness, prickling, "pins and needles", or tingling feelings
• chest pain or discomfort
• chills
• cold and clammy skin
• cold sweats
• confusion
• cough
• dark yellow urine
• diarrhea
• dilated neck veins
• dizziness or lightheadedness when getting up from a lying or sitting position
• extra heartbeats
• fainting
• fever
• itching of the skin
• joint or muscle pain
• large, hive-like swelling on the face, eyelids, lips, tongue, throat, hands, legs, feet, or sex organs
• numbness and tingling of the face, fingers, or toes
• pain in the arms, legs, or lower back, especially pain in the calves or heels upon exertion
• painful or difficult urination
• pale, bluish-colored, or cold hands or feet
• pinpoint red or purple spots on the skin
• red, irritated eyes
• redness of the face, neck, arms, and occasionally, upper chest
• redness, soreness or itching skin
• shakiness in the legs, arms, hands, or feet
• slow or irregular heartbeat
• sore throat
• sores, ulcers, or white spots on the lips or in the mouth
• sores, welting, or blisters
• sudden sweating
• sweating
• swelling of the face, fingers, feet, or lower legs
• swollen glands
• trembling or shaking of the hands or feet
• unsteadiness or awkwardness
• unusual bleeding or bruising
• unusual tiredness or weakness
• weak or absent pulses in the legs
• weakness in the arms, hands, legs, or feet
• weight gain
• yellow eyes or skin

Then there are the ones judged to be less severe:

Side effects not requiring immediate medical attention

Some side effects of amlodipine may occur that usually do not need medical attention. These side effects may go away during treatment as your body adjusts to the medicine. Also, your health care professional may be able to tell you about ways to prevent or reduce some of these side effects.

Check with your health care professional if any of the following side effects continue or are bothersome or if you have any questions about them:

Less common

• Acid or sour stomach
• belching
• feeling of warmth
• heartburn
• indigestion
• lack or loss of strength
• muscle cramps
• redness of the face, neck, arms, and occasionally, upper chest
• sleepiness or unusual drowsiness
• stomach discomfort, upset, or pain

Those are the issues with just one of the many hypertension drugs, one of the most widely prescribed!

Conclusion

Blood pressure varies greatly, reflecting the human body's amazing self-regulation systems. In the vast majority of cases, blood pressure goes up with age. Lowering it by drugs does more harm than good. Except perhaps in extreme cases, high blood pressure does not cause disease. When pressure is extremely high, a search for the cause should be made. The ongoing focus on hypertension as a disease reflects nothing but the stubborn refusal of the medical establishment to admit that they were wrong, and of the pharma companies to give up a lucrative market.

The Facts are Clear: Don't Take Cholesterol-lowering Drugs

I have described the background and evidence of the diet-heart fiasco -- the hypothesis-turned-fake-fact that you shouldn't eat saturated fat because it raises your "bad" LDL cholesterol, which causes hearts disease. Not only is it wrong -- eating saturated fat is positively good for you!

This deadly farce has generated a medical effort to lower the cholesterol of patients in order to keep them healthy. There have been over a trillion dollars in sales for cholesterol-lowering statin drugs so far.The entire medical establishment has supported this as a way to prevent heart disease.There's just one little problem, now proved by extensive, objective real-world evidence and biochemical understanding: Cholesterol, including the "bad" LDL, is NOT a cause of heart disease. Even indirectly. Lowering LDL via diet change or statins does NOT prevent heart disease. So don't avoid saturated fats or take statins!

Here's the kicker: higher cholesterol is associated pretty strongly with living longer, particularly in women! And the side effects of the drugs are widespread and serious!

Basic facts

Let's start with a few facts:

• Eating fat will NOT make you fat. Eating sugar will make you fat.
• The human brain is 70% fat.
• 25% of all cholesterol in the body is found in the brain.
• All cells in your body are made of fat and cholesterol.
• LDL is not cholesterol! HDL isn't either! They are proteins that carry cholesterol and fat-soluble vitamins. Lowering it lowers your vitamins.

To get the big picture about the diet-heart hypothesis (the reason why you're supposed to take statins in order to lower your cholesterol in order to prevent heart disease), see this post on the Whole Milk Disaster. For more detail, see the post on why you should eat lots of saturated fat.

To get lots of detail, read this extensive review of Cholesterol Con and this extensive review of The Clot Thickens -- and by all means dive into the books. Here is an excellent summary written by an MD explaining the situation and the alternative thrombogenic hypothesis. Here is a recent paper in a peer-reviewed journal reviewing to what extent blood cholesterol causes heart disease.

The Bogus Hyposthesis

How did thing get started? Stupidity mixed with remarkably bad science. Here is a brief summary of a PhD thesis examination of the build-up to the Cholesterol-is-bad theory:

The cholesterol hypothesis originated in the early years of the twentieth century. While performing autopsies, Russian pathologists noticed build-up in the arteries of deceased people. The build-up contained cholesterol. They hypothesised that the cholesterol had caused the build-up and blocked the artery leading to a sudden death (the term “heart attacks” was not much used before the end of World War II).

An alternative hypothesis would be that cholesterol is a substance made by the body for the repair and health of every cell and thus something else had damaged the artery wall and cholesterol had gone to repair that damage. This is the hypothesis that has the memorable analogy – fire fighters are always found at the scene of a fire. They didn’t cause the fire – they went there to fix it. Ditto with cholesterol. The alternative hypothesis did not occur to the pathologists by all accounts.

The pathologists undertook experiments in rabbits to feed them cholesterol to see if they ‘clogged up’ and sure enough they did. However, rabbits are herbivores and cholesterol is only found in animal foods and thus it’s not surprising that feeding animal foods to natural vegetarians clogged them up. When rabbits were fed purified cholesterol in their normal (plant-based) food, they didn’t clog up. That should have been a red flag to the hypothesis, but it wasn’t.

Then Ancel Keys got involved, and the bad idea became gospel.

Population studies

Before taking drugs like statins to reduce cholesterol, doesn't it make sense to see if people with lower cholesterol lead longer lives? The question has been examined. Short answer: people with higher cholesterol live longer. 

Here is data from a giant WHO database of cholesterol from over 190 countries:

More cholesterol = longer life for men, a strong correlation. Even more so for women, who on average have HIGHER cholesterol than men:

When you dive into specific countries and history, the effect is even more striking. Check out the Japanese paradox

To illustrate the Japanese paradox, he reported that, over the past 50 years, the average cholesterol level has risen in Japan from 3.9 mmol/l to 5.2 mmol/l. Deaths from heart disease have fallen by 60% and rates of stroke have fallen seven-fold in parallel. A 25% rise in cholesterol levels has thus accompanied a six-fold drop in death from CVD (Ref 6).

And the strange things going on in Europe led by those cheese-loving French:

The French paradox is well known – the French have the lowest cardiovascular Disease (CVD) rate in Europe and higher than average cholesterol levels (and the highest saturated fat consumption in Europe, by the way). Russia has over 10 times the French death rate from heart disease, despite having substantially lower cholesterol levels than France. Switzerland has one of the lowest death rates from heart disease in Europe with one of the highest cholesterol levels.

Hard-core RCT's (Randomized Controlled Trials)

RCT's are the gold standard of medical science and much else. You divide a population into a control group for which nothing changes and a test group, which is subjected to the treatment you want to test. It's hard to do this with anything like diet! But it has been done in controlled settings a few times at good scale. The results of the RCT's that have been done did NOT support the fat-cholesterol-heart-disease theory and so were kept hidden. But in a couple cases they've been recovered, studied and published.

A group of highly qualified investigators has uncovered two such studies and published the results in the British Medical Journal in 2016: "Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)." They summarize the results of their earlier study:

Our recovery and 2013 publication of previously unpublished data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study (SDHS, 1966-73) belatedly showed that replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid significantly increased the risks of death from coronary heart disease and all causes, despite lowering serum cholesterol.14

Lower cholesterol meant greater risk of death. Clear.

The Minnesota study was pretty unique:

The Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE), a randomized controlled trial conducted in 1968-73, was the largest (n=9570) and perhaps the most rigorously executed dietary trial of cholesterol lowering by replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid. The MCE is the only such randomized controlled trial to complete postmortem assessment of coronary, aortic, and cerebrovascular atherosclerosis grade and infarct status and the only one to test the clinical effects of increasing linoleic acid in large prespecified subgroups of women and older adults.

Moreover, it was sponsored by the most famous proponent of the diet-heart hypothesis: Ancel Keys. So what happened? Here's a brief summary from an article in the Chicago Tribune after the 2016 BMJ study was published:

Second, and perhaps more important, these iconoclastic findings went unpublished until 1989 and then saw the light of day only in an obscure medical journal with few readers. One of the principal investigators told a science journalist that he sat on the results for 16 years and didn't publish because "we were just so disappointed in the way they turned out."

From the BMJ 2016 paper:

The traditional diet heart hypothesis predicts that participants with greater reduction in serum cholesterol would have a lower risk of death (fig 1⇑, line B). MCE participants with greater reduction in serum cholesterol, however, had a higher rather than a lower risk of death.

...

The number, proportion, and probability of death increased as serum cholesterol decreased

Wowza. The "better" (lower) your blood cholesterol levels, the more likely you were to die. In fact, "For each 1% fall in cholesterol there was a 1% increase in the risk of death."

Problems with Statins

Not only do statins not work to lengthen lives, taking them is a bad idea because of their side effects. This is a starting place. For example, check the side effects of a leading statin:

Good effects vs. side effects

We know for a fact that lowering your blood cholesterol is a bad idea. We know the drugs that do it have side effects. It's natural to think that the drugs normally do their thing and in rare cases there are side effects. Often, this is far from the truth. Here are excerpts from an article that explains the basic medical math concept of NNT

Most people have never heard the term NNT, which stands for Number Needed to Treat, or to put it another way, the number of people who need to take a drug for one person to see a noticeable benefit. It's a bit of a counterintuitive concept for people outside medicine, since most people probably assume the NNT for all drugs is 1, right? If I'm getting this drug, it must be because it is going to help me. Well, wrong.

What about the side effects of statins?

Many people who take the drug develop chronic aches and pains. The drug also causes noticeable cognitive impairment in a proportion of those taking it, and some even end up being diagnosed with dementia - how big the risk is unfortunately isn't known, because proper studies haven't been carried out that could answer that question. Additionally, the drug causes blood sugar levels to rise, resulting in type 2 diabetes in around 2% of those taking the drug - it is in fact one of the most common causes of type 2 diabetes.

NNT applied to statins:

Well, if you've already had a heart attack, i.e. you've already been established to be at high risk for heart attacks, then the NNT over five years of treatment is 40. In other words, 39 of 40 people taking a high dose statin for five years after a heart attack won't experience any noticeable benefit. But even if they're not the lucky one in 40 who gets to avoid a heart attack, they'll still have to contend with the side effects.

How many patients are told about NNT? If you haven't had a heart attack, the NNT is vastly greater than 40, and yet statins are prescribed when cholesterol is "too high" no matter what. Many of the side effects happen in 10% of the cases, which is four times greater than the number of people who are "helped." Doctors who do this are indeed members of the "helping profession;" the question is, who exactly are they helping?

Here, here and here are more details about NNT for statin use.

Conclusion

If you value science, you should not worry about lowering your cholesterol. If you value your life and health, you should be happy to have high cholesterol. Likewise, you should avoid taking cholesterol-lowering drugs because in the end they hurt you more than they help you. If you're worried about pharma companies losing profits, it's a much better idea to just send them a monthly check -- forget about their drugs!