al. lohse

SPONSORED LINKS BY GOOGLE

Or, "Is the cure more dangerous than the
malady? Does anyone care?"

Recent exchange:
A.L.


Dr. C.


A.L.

Dr. C.


A.L.


A.L.
Dr. Chung gives two here; Have dealt with the
second one, now for the first.

Dr. C.

A.L.

The notion that "High blood pressure is not a
health concern." is not mine. No question,
extremely high blood pressure for an extended
period of time is extremely damaging. So,
there is absolutely no disagreement there.
Where any disagreement might arise is in the
definition of "high blood pressure" or
hypertension. Is the definition of 140/90
based on scientific considerations or
marketing considerations? What about the
newly invented category of
"pre-hypertension?"


of Modern Medicine by Dr. James LeFanu (c)
1999:
"...the results of treating those with 'mild'
hypertension conducted by the Medical
Research Council in Britain in the early
1980s were much more equivocal: it was
necessary to treat 850 people for one year to
prevent one stroke. Thus 849 people out of
850 taking medication in any one year would
not expect to benefit." (He gives a reference
here, but the meagerness of the result is not
in question.)

If people were to realize this and the
potential consequences of taking a drug like
monopril, perhaps more enlightened decisions
can be made.

What are the potential consequences of taking
monopril? We'll check the monograph put out
by its manufacturer:

"Other clinical events probably or possibly
related, or of uncertain relationship to
therapy occurring in 0.2 to 1.0% of patients
(except as noted) treated with MONOPRIL in
controlled or uncontrolled clinical trials (N
= 1479) and less frequent, clinically
significant events include (listed by body
system):
"General: Chest pain, edema, weakness,
excessive sweating.
"Cardiovascular: Angina/myocardial
infarction, cerebrovascular accident,
hypertensive crisis, rhythm disturbances,
palpitations, hypotension, syncope, flushing,
claudication.
"Orthostatic hypotension occurred in 1.4% of
patients treated with fosinopril monotherapy.
Hypotension or orthostatic hypotension was a
cause for discontinuation of therapy in 0.1%
of patients.
"Dermatologic: Urticaria, rash,
photosensitivity, pruritus.
"Endocrine/Metabolic: Gout, decreased libido.
"Gastrointestinal: Pancreatitis, hepatitis,
dysphagia, abdominal distention, abdominal
pain, flatulence, constipation, heartburn,
appetite/weight change, dry mouth.
"Hematologic: Lymphadenopathy.
"Immunologic: Angioedema. (See WARNINGS:
Angioedema).
"Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, musculoskeletal
pain, myalgia/muscle cramp.
"Nervous/Psychiatric: Memory disturbance,
tremor, confusion, mood change, paresthesia,
sleep disturbance, drowsiness, vertigo.
"Respiratory: Bronchospasm, pharyngitis,
sinusitis/rhinitis, laryngitis/hoarseness,
epistaxis. A symptom-complex of cough,
bronchospasm, and eosinophilia has been
observed in two patients treated with
fosinopril.
"Special Senses: Tinnitus, vision
disturbance, taste disturbance, eye
irritation.
"Urogenital: Renal insufficiency, urinary
frequency."

Please note: That is not my message, but the
writings of the manufacturer. It should be
seen as an embellishment of actual

The cardiovascular portion is by
itself, already quite disturbing, quite
frightening:

"Cardiovascular: Angina/myocardial
infarction, cerebrovascular accident,
hypertensive crisis, rhythm disturbances,
palpitations, hypotension, syncope, flushing,
claudication."

For a one in 850 chance of avoiding a stroke,
you take an 8.5 in 850 chance of "myocardial
infarction," an 8.5 in 850 chance of
"cerebrovascular accident" (Is that not a
kind of stroke?), an 8.5 in 850 chance for
"hypertensive crisis," an 8.5 in 850 chance
for "rhythm disturbances" and many, many
more.

(8.5 in 850 is identical to 1% to 1 in 100.)

Seems like the drug is more dangerous than
the malady.

So, in the absence of real science, who would
chance these adverse reactions for such an
unlikely benefit and why?

I was on monopril when I had my mild heart
attack with non-usual symptoms.

Not quite a hypertensive crisis, but I was on
monopril when my systolic would not drop
below 170 mmHg even when doubling the dose.

Under:
"Musculoskeletal: Arthralgia, musculoskeletal
pain, myalgia/muscle cramp."

Is not a vasospasm like a "muscle cramp?"
What is the fundamental difference? The
arterial muscles clamp down, restricting
blood flow but fail to relax when "told to do
so." That is like a muscle cramp. Any
relation to the "bronchospasm" listed above?

If doctors were to demand better information,
more science, then, maybe, potentially
dangerous drugs would not be used to treat
rarely occuring events.

What is the value system in place? Who has
the "strange ideas" now?

A.L.

P.S. The results of my experience with this
drug are not recorded outside of my doctors'
offices. Have approached the ministries of
health. The federal ministry sent a form for
the Adverse Drug Reaction Reporting Program.

The form can only be filled out by a
volunteering doctor. For my doctor to fill it
out and send it in, he would have to admit to
doing me harm, against his oath. I know he is
disinclined to do that. So, even my offering
the government the report of a possible
adverse reaction did not help in that the
information has been ignored. My experience
will not help others using this drug, because
my experience is systematically ignored.

Someone, somewhere likes it that way.