Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Brain Connection To Hypertension?

kdawson posted more than 7 years ago | from the under-pressure dept.

Biotech 92

The possibility that one cause of high blood pressure lies within the brain, and not the heart or blood vessels, has been put forward by scientists at the University of Bristol, UK. A research group there found a novel role for a protein called JAM-1, located in the walls of blood vessels in the brain. JAM-1 traps white blood cells, which can then cause inflammation and may obstruct blood flow, resulting in poor oxygen supply to the brain. The article notes that the idea that hypertension is an inflammatory vascular disease of the brain is somewhat controversial.

cancel ×

92 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Tongue Connection To Hypertension? (1)

DrEldarion (114072) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748025)

I love my damn salt.

Re:Tongue Connection To Hypertension? (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749531)

I know that you're joking, but even if you aren't, odds are that you can use as much salt as you want -- at least wrt to hypertension. Only about a quarter of the population actually have or will develop elevated blood pressure and only about half of those who have hypertension have a drop in blood pressure when they reduce sodium intake.

Re:Tongue Connection To Hypertension? (3, Informative)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750947)

Not true...

If it were so, then diuretics would not be a first line drug for hypertension, and considered to be the most effective ones at that. What you are saying is true for those who are not hypertensive, yes... but eating high amounts of salt, over time, puts serious strain on the kidneys, and can lead to future hypertension. If you are hypertensive, then sodium management plays a BIG role in your blood pressure.

Americans eat more than 8 grams of sodium per day, on average... some people more than 10 grams... That's a hell of a lot of salt... Since sodium is about half the weight of salt, you are looking at about 16 grams of salt per day.

In other words, Americans eat, on average, almost 3 tablespoons of salt a day... and the kidneys have to filter all that stuff out. It's not easy. Sodium filtration is very hard on the kidneys--it's the most challenging of all the kidney's filtration processes. One of the reasons why blood pressure increases with high sodium is that the kidneys need extra pressure to force the sodium through it's sodium "filter", especially if the kidneys have been damaged (and we all suffer some kidney damage as we get older). High salt really gives the kidneys a workout, and over time, causes them to wear out. When the kidneys get less effective in managing fluid balance, it can cause an incredibly dramatic shift in blood pressure. An increase in blood volume of only 2% can cause a 20 point increase in blood pressure. *ALL* essential hypertensives have fluid balance problems (many secondary hypertensives have other causes, like thyroid, adrenal, or neurological problems.. that is a different story). that is why hypertension docs are nephrologists... kidney specialists. The kidneys, and their regulation of blood volume, are the key to hypertension in 90% of cases.

Our bodies are not designed to handle the incredibly high loads of salt we ingest daily. We were made to eat fresh food, where sodium (except for meat) is rather low...

Low salt diets really work. I am on one... my parents are on one... If you do it right, you can avoid nasty blood pressure medicines that make you miserable.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:Tongue Connection To Hypertension? (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18767057)

***If it were so, then diuretics would not be a first line drug for hypertension, and considered to be the most effective ones at that.***

Diuretics are the first drug tried because they are cheap, rarely have unpleasant side affects, and work for about 50% of hypertensives.

***Americans eat more than 8 grams of sodium per day, on average***

More like 3.5 grams on average -- about twice the minimum recommended value. (Humans need some dietary Sodium and Chloride to function). Now the Japanese ... they have an average intake of over 10 grams a day, and not suprisingly, they have a lot of strokes -- presumably mostly among the percentage of the population whose blood pressure is Sodium sensitive. OTOH, Japanese, on average, outlive Americans by a couple of years so its hard to make a case for the lethality of Sodium.

***High salt really gives the kidneys a workout***

You'd think so, but probably not. What actually seems to happen is that the Kidneys run blood through a processing system where all the dissolved content of the blood is diverted into a potential waste stream. The essential stuff -- including enough sodium to maintain electrolyte balances -- is transferred back to the blood from the potential waste stream by transporters. Once the Sodium level in the waste stream gets slightly above the capacity of the transporters, it doesn't matter how much Sodium is in the waste stream, the kidneys don't have to do any additional work to handle it. (I suspect that last sentance should end with "within rational limits")

***Low salt diets really work. I am on one... my parents are on one... If you do it right, you can avoid nasty blood pressure medicines that make you miserable.***

They work for some people. They don't for about the same number of people. Neither low salt diets, nor diuretics, have ever had the slightest measurable affect on my somewhat elevated bloodpressure. I avoid Sodium anyway, but it probably wouldn't matter if I didn't. In fact, the only correlation I have ever been able to find between my bloodpressure and any external stimulus is with hours and quality of sleep.

Summary is misleading (4, Informative)

MollyB (162595) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748049)

The summary says the finding is "controversial" but this appears inaccurate.

FTFA:

Professor Jeremy Pearson, Associate Medical Director of the British Heart Foundation, commented: "This exciting study is important because it suggests there are unexpected causes of high blood pressure related to blood supply to the brain. It therefore opens up the possibility of new ways to treat this common, but often poorly managed, condition."

As there is still poor understanding about what changes occur in people when hypertension develops, the finding of JAM-1 is of great interest and opens up multiple new avenues for further research and potential treatment.
How is this controversial?

Re:Summary is misleading (4, Funny)

Seumas (6865) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748059)

I don't know, but I'm sure we can find a creationist to tell us.

Also (2, Funny)

Seoulstriker (748895) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748275)

Or an evolutionist...

Re:Also (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748783)

WTF is an "evolutionist"? If you mean someone who thinks that the modern theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the facts observed, the word you're looking for is "scientist". Just like the opposite of a "faith healer" isn't a "faithless healer", but a "doctor".

Re:Also (1, Interesting)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749395)

If you mean someone who thinks that the modern theory of evolution is the best available explanation for the facts observed, the word you're looking for is "scientist".

Oh really? So a physics professor can't be skeptical of evolution and still be considered a "scientist?" I didn't realize the criteria for science was: "must improperly and broadly apply Darwin's theory of natural selection to human origins." Darwin wrote two major works: The Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. The first one describes the theory of natural selection, and it is actually quite limited in its scope: Darwin doesn't make any vast or overarching claims in the work. The Descent of Man, on the other hand, is virulently racist and offers little to no rigorous study. Most people's ideas about evolution come from The Descent of Man, whether they know it or not. It is the basis for the Social Darwinism and other ridiculous interpretations of evolutionary theory.

Just like the opposite of a "faith healer" isn't a "faithless healer", but a "doctor".

Now you just sound stupid. What about Chinese medicine, or holistic methods? They're not "faith healers" but they're certainly not M.D.s.

Re:Also (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750661)

You get to be the idiot that brought Darwin or what "most people" think into this -- I was quite careful to say "modern evolutionary theory". There might be people out there with all sorts of bad evolutionary ideas, but they're not being scientists either.

If a physicist is a creationist, he's not applying science to his biological ideas. Creationism is based on a refusal to argue with evidence. Your claptrap about Darwin's writings being racist is an example. It's interesting that creationists seem incapable of restricting themselves to scientific arguments.

I see no reason to bother with a distinction between the various types of nonscientific medicine.

Re:Also (1)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18760091)

There might be people out there with all sorts of bad evolutionary ideas, but they're not being scientists either.

I think you're operating under a flawed definition of "scientist." A scientist is someone who, according to Merriam-Webster, specializes in a branch of the natural sciences. That's it. Nowhere in there does it equate someone's evolutionary viewpoint with their validity as a scientist. Perhaps you define scientist as "someone who applies the Scientific Method to every aspect of their lives." If that's how you define it, that's fine and dandy, but it's a dumb definition because NO ONE does that.

If a physicist is a creationist, he's not applying science to his biological ideas. Creationism is based on a refusal to argue with evidence. Your claptrap about Darwin's writings being racist is an example. It's interesting that creationists seem incapable of restricting themselves to scientific arguments.

Point one: there's no such thing as "applying science" to an idea. And you're generalizing. I never said the physicist was "a creationist," I said he/she was skeptical of evolutionary theory. Skepticism forms the basis of all science. You should know that.

Point two: creationism is not "based on a refusal to argue with evidence." It's simply the view that God created the heavens and the earth--hence, creationism. Some fundamental Christians believe that God created the earth within a specific time frame--namely, seven days. This is called strict creationism or Biblical creationism. You should get your terminology straight; that's twice now I've corrected your improper usage of the English language.

Point three: my "claptrap" about Darwin was to point out that the application of evolutionary theory to humanity has always been heavily politicized. It is almost impossible to find a scientist who approaches evolution in the same way that he/she would approach a proof of, say, Fermat's Little Theorem. When it comes to the origin of mankind, people always have an agenda to push. In that sense I view evolutionary theory like any other religious movement: people base their world view off of it.

Point four: when did I ever say I was a creationist? And further, what does a "scientific argument" have to do with anything? Last time I checked, we were discussing a philosophical idea: whether or not belief in evolutionary theory could be considered the sole factor in designating someone a "scientist." Since all of the accepted definitions of scientist make no mention of evolutionary theory, clearly it's not the determining agent, hence I was right, and you were wrong. There is no "scientific argument" to be had. So, make that four times that you've misused the English language.

Re:Summary is misleading (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748159)

How is this controversial?

Yeah, I thought it was a no brainer.

Re:Summary is misleading (1)

zorbid (634449) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748289)

From TFA:

Funded primarily by the British Heart Foundation, Professor Julian Paton and colleagues have been working on the problems of hypertension for 12 years. Although the idea that the brain is to blame for high blood pressure is controversial, recent evidence from both animal models and patients supports this.

It's controversial because it's new, and some minds are slow to adapt to new paradigms...</troll>

More seriously, as every new finding/hypothesis it has to be taken carefully, assessed in various ways to ensure it is not a side effect of some other phenomenon.

If you want to know more, please browse the literature :)







...





If you want to know more, please browse the literature :)

You're new here.

not that much!!

Anyway, you should stop talking to yourself...

Indeed

Re:Summary is misleading (1)

MollyB (162595) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748317)

Whups! How did I miss that? My mistake, and thanks for the correction. Apologies to kdawson, too, I presume.
(loved your mental dialogue, btw)

Re:Summary is misleading (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748339)

It is controversial because the majority of groups researching hypertension do not (currently) feel that there is enough evidence to prove this hypothesis (despite the JAM-1 finding).


There are many proteins/lipids/cytokines such as A1+32 (a subunit of good cholesterol, HDL) that cause inflammation in the vascular wall, some are caused by oxidation of these antigens and there are many others, such as this newly named JAM-1, that we are yet to understand.


A scientific finding does not a breakthrough make, and there will need to be many years of experimentation by many groups both in vitro and in vivo, as well as huge amounts of peer reviewed publication before there is a clearer understanding of what this finding means.


It is a process, completely unlike /. (or indeed opposing imaginary friends or politics, for that matter), where people standing on opposite sides yelling "tis, tisn't" at each other wears down the other and they give up and say, "yeah, whatevah, do I look bovverd?" (although some group meetings are like this, these things are thrashed out behind closed doors).



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Summary is misleading (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748805)

GP posted retraction earlier [slashdot.org] .

Hope you get over whatever it is that seems to annoy you.

Re:Summary is misleading (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749049)

Possibly because I was not refreshing the page every few minutes to check whether anyone had replied might be an answer. And, that I tend to construct a slightly longer reply than the one-liner than many seem to find is the extent of their abilities.


I'm unsure of what you perceive I need to get over ........



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

JAM-1 behavior (2, Interesting)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748091)

What would the benefit of trapping white blood cells be? TFA refers to the discovery of a 'novel' role for the protein...

Is it possible that this is unintended behavior on the part of the protein or does the behavior serve some purpose?

Re:JAM-1 behavior (2, Informative)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18754197)

Well if you had a single meningococcus adhere to that blood vessel and try to squeeze its way through the blood brain barrier (that would result in fatal meningitis,) you'd want to be able to have a way to call WBCs to the area to kill it before it decides to start reproducing.

yuo Fa1l It (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748109)

backward and said population as 3ell Part of GNAA if MOVIE [imdb.com] world will have themselves to be a battled in court,

Just an observation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748121)

from the under-pressure dept.

UNDER PRESSURE .. COMING DOWN ON ME

under pressure dum dum dum dum dum dum

(Vanilla Ice totally ripped that song, but its so funny to watch a burnout try to explain it)

Yo0 FAIL iut! (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748127)

Heliobacter P. was controversial... (4, Interesting)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748137)

Not too long ago a http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helicobacter_pylori [wikipedia.org] was a similarly 'radical' concept. We know how that ended up changing things with regard to the treatment of ulcers.

What I'm interested in is if there's a link with migraines. Hypertension medication is quite often helpfull in preventing or modulating migraine attacks in severe sufferers. The underlying mechanisms of migraines are not fully known and what mechanisms are known, are poorly understood. There seems to be concensus that it involves a chemical inflamation proces of arteries in the skull, though and if this proposition holds, that might explain how these medications work for migraines, too.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (3, Informative)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748381)

We know how that ended up changing things with regard to the treatment of ulcers.

Your link says that nothing substantial changed, as the new conventional treatment doesn't work just like the old conventional treatment didn't work:

Unfortunately, an increasing number of infected individuals are found to harbour antibiotic-resistant bacteria. This results in initial treatment failure and requires additional rounds of antibiotic therapy or alternative strategies. For resistant cases, a quadruple therapy may be used. Bismuth compounds are also effective in combination with the above drugs. For the treatment of clarithromycin-resistant strains of H. pylori the use of levofloxacin as part of the therapy has been recommended.

Some people will benefit from any treatment, of course, due to the placebo effect, and sporadic success of treating ulcers with antibiotics is not indicative of accuracy of the theory ('ulcers are caused by bacteria').

Incidentally, your link reminds me of a different overview for health I ran across some years back. Information doesn't sell nearly as well as pharmaceuticals, and the site disappeared sometime last year. Archive.org fortunately still has a copy: Stomach Ulcers to Indigestion from Too Little Acid in the Stomach [archive.org] . If I may be so bold as to summarize this website, it says that stomach ulcers result from an excess of metabolic acids in the body-system; the presence of large colonies of said bacterium are simply indicative of an extreme pH imbalance. The body generates acids as a normal part of the metabolic processes. Modern diets are deficient in the alkaline minerals necessary to neutralize these acids, and most don't get the exercise necessary to 'burn off' the acids either, hence the explosion of chronic disease of all sorts.

There was also a page on heart disease [archive.org] . Too bad you can't bottle this information up & sell it to people for $100/month... I have family members on high blood pressure medication, and they don't work very well. Their treatments would be so much more effective if they addressed the causes (chronic stress is the other big one), rather than just a symptom.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (4, Informative)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748543)

Fortunately (for me) I was referring to the part where the discovery of a bacterium as a cause, was a radical new insight that met loads of scepticism in the scientific an medical community. As it turns out, it did change a lot in the treatment of ulcers. The fact that treatment now is becoming more and more ineffective does nothing to diminish the discovery that a whole new mechanism is the main cause for Gastric Ulcers!

The rest of your rant may or may not be accurate but nothing you say takes away from the fact that this research might mean a lot to the field. I want to see this new research carried forward until it is either proven or disproven and consequences are taken.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748777)

My point was that the presence of the bacterium is not the cause of ulcers, but simply an effect, a symptom indicative of some deeper problem. "The fact that treatment now is becoming more and more ineffective" simply indicates that the treatment does not address the cause.

From the fine article: The alarming statistic that nearly 60 per cent of patients remain hypertensive, even though they are taking drugs to alleviate the condition, emphasises the urgency of looking for new mechanisms by which the body controls blood pressure, and finding new therapeutic targets to drive fresh drug development. (emphasis added)

While the connection between this protein and hypertension might be interesting, it is mostly irrelevant to successful treatment of the condition. Teach a person with high blood pressure how to fully relax their body, take care of the acid/base imbalance, perhaps address other nutritional deficiencies [Omega 3 intake?] and functional problems, and the need for constant dosages of antihypertensive drugs of any sort will usually go away. But such an approach can't be patented and sold in a bottle, so society's health is compromised to protect the profits of our medical-industrial complex.

Achieving good health is simple [amazon.com] ; the medical system we have today makes staying/becoming vibrantly healthy difficult, because it can't see the forest for the trees [about.com] .

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749423)

Others have already responded to the wholly unscientific nature of the literature you reference so I'll stick to the facts and logic here: the fact that a therapy used to work and is becoming less effective do not mean the underlying mechanism is not at work. The underlying mechanism has, in my opinion, been proven through scientific means and methods. The fact that perhaps agravating factors are at play does not matter in this respect. Point in case: the fact that bacteria become resistant to anti-biotics doesn't mean that the way the anti-biotics work is now suddenly invalidated.

Next you jump to hypertension, something that I did not address at first. What I addressed, is the observation that many people who use hypertension medication also see a marked drop in frequence of their migraine attacks. This has nothing to do with the effectiveness of hypertension medication for its original intended purpose. I'm also not addressing the fact that Big Farma is reaping the benefit of 'recycling' existing medication for new purposes, nor the fact that Big Farma is profit-driven and not health-benefit driven. None of it matters to this subject.

I agree with you that people can do a lot more for their own health by actively changing their pattern of living. That doesn't mean that scientific research isn't needed or even useless. It is one of the few means the human race has to 'get ahead in the world'. It also doesn't mean that the research isn't necesary for the good of sick people. Even if bad health is largely preventable, there will always be sick people who need medication.

As I think our points of view on this matter are very incompatible and as I'm not inclined to move in your direction, I'll consider this the end of our exchange of views on the subject.

mnb Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748657)

You're right, they weren't trying to sell pharmaceuticals, were they?
http://web.archive.org/web/20051230013018/www.euro americanhealth.com/order.html [archive.org]

The "pH imbalance" theory to everything health-related bullshit is still spewed on late-night infomercials. The fact it has been roundly debunked by medical science won't mean a thing to a faithful devote of the Church of Simple Answers and Vast Conspiracies like yourself, so I won't waste any more of my breath.

Re:mnb Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

SpecTheIntro (951219) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749483)

so I won't waste any more of my breath.

Yes, because clearly your time is so valuable that you do not have time to create an account or log in. You certainly showed him.

Re:mnb Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18752927)

The AC obviously didn't read the instructions for the powder that was being sold:

3. Balanced Base Powder

One can take, by mouth, the necessary quick bases (sodium and potassium bicarbonate, both macro minerals that the body needs a lot of) that the body needs to neutralize the stored acids in the body and correct the relative base deficiency, correct the "latent acidosis". This is what the Balanced Base Powder does. This powder also provides the necessary chloride ions in the form of Celtic sea salt and potassium chloride that are needed to recharge the hydrochloric acid producing ability of the stomach, and thereby and more importantly, the sodium bicarbonate producing ability of the same.

Take 1/2 to 1 teaspoon in water or juice between meals of Balanced Base Powder or, if this is not available, use the same amount of baking soda in water or fruit juice, between meals and before bed, i.e. three times a day.

The important thing is to take it on an empty stomach, so it can suck out the excess "deposit acid" from the acid producing cells lining the stomach (thereby generating more bicarbonate which goes into the blood stream) and not interfere with the acid that is needed at the times of eating. One needs acid in the stomach to digest food obviously so the Balanced Base Powder or baking soda should not be taken around meal times. ...

-Treatment of latent acidosis [archive.org] (emphasis added)


It's obvious to me why the site went down: it was a drain on his finances, and he came out & told people directly that plain Baking Soda was an acceptable alternative to the product he was selling. Furthermore, the base powders were only one of thirteen recommendations, and he couldn't sell any supplies for implementation of the other treatment suggestions.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748723)

Taking the meds alone, is never as good as lifestyle changes such as just about every first world inhabitant could stand to lose 15 to 20 kg (through mainly exercise) to no ill effect, they could also eat rather more fruit and veg, drink less caffeinated, carbonated and sugar soaked beverages and drink the occasional glass of red wine.



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18752827)

I like the quote - thanks for bringing it up. Where is it from? I put it in my quote file, and right now it's attributed to the URL for your comment... :)

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18757269)

Um, it is mine, one I developed about 12 years ago, an amalgam of my views on certain scientists that spend way too much time peering at the structure of some unregarded molecule whilst the big picture goes to hell in a handbag in front of them. Their favourite preface is always "You know what you should have done ....."



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

maeka (518272) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748759)

The central idea here is of course, that of Vitalism; vs. the Empiricism of modern, allopathic medicine. Vitalism is the underlying idea of Eclectic, Homeopathic, Naturopathic, Oriental and Chiropractic approaches to health and healing - the concept of the Vis Medicatrix Naturae - or the life force, which has had many names but constitutes one idea.

ECLECTIC MEDICINE IS SYNTHESIS OF OPTIONS
SYNTHESIS OF OPTIONS IS FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Best medical site ever!
I wonder why they went under?
Smells like Bulls *clap* hit.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18754593)

Death from bleeding gastric ulcers was quite common historically. Ulcers were so life-threatening that surgery to remove them was fairly common as the benefit of removing the ulcer outweighed the risk of major abdominal surgery. There was a decrease in incidence when we got better sanitation, but there was also a significant drop in the 80's when we got the H2RAs, learned to eradicate H. Pylori, and eventually got the PPIs.

I'm a GP and an ER physician and went to school in the 90s (after the era of modern ulcer treatment.) I have seen a LOT of bleeding ulcers. I can't remember a death from an ulcer causing a GI bleed in any of my patients. Period. I also don't remember having seen ulcer surgery on anyone who is my age or younger. You just never see it anymore because its so rarely needed.

I also had a gastric ulcer from H. Pylori. I took triple therapy, missed exactly zero doses of medicine, and had a full cure. The biggest issue with eradication therapy in my experience is getting people to be compliant with the whole treatment. (Its not easy... especially shitting those special bismuth turds.) And what happens when you don't take the antibiotic correctly? Resistance.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18757923)

A bleeding ulcer (now a benign stomach tumor) almost got my grandfather a few weeks back. He covered up the pain through self-medicated with teh prilosec (don't know if he ever asked his doctor about it), but it's obvious to me that Grandpa has a case of the hyper-acidity, which his doctors never even considered.. He signed himself up for hospice care last week.

I have good cause to distrust pharmaceutical medicine - it's done nothing for me but cover up the health problems I had. The turning point for me was when I decided to do my own research, and eventually finding the Edgar Cayce material. I'm not personally familiar with ulcers, so here's something you might find helpful:

ULCERS

I. Physiological Considerations

Ulcerations of the gastrointestinal tract, particularly the stomach and duodenum, is a relatively common disorder which in most cases is associated with hyperacidity (at least in benign lesions). Increased acidity is brought about by a variety of mechanisms which again can be translated into disturbed function in the nervous, circulatory, and digestive systems.

It is now commonly accepted that people under high stress situations -- e.g., tension jobs, the critically ill patient, etc. -- have a greater tendency to develop ulcers. It is also known that there is ulcer diathesis with increased levels of steroid, whether endogenous (as in Cushon's disease) or exogenous (as in people on steroid therapy for various reasons). Yet another variation is found in the Zoolinger-Ellison Syndrome, a condition associated with a gastrin-secreting tumor of the pancreas which in turn stimulates excessive acid production leading to ulcerations.

Malignant ulcers are more often associated with normal or low acid level, which probably reflects a process of degeneration (from chronic irritation) from an initially benign lesion. The rapidity of such a degeneration would depend on the presence and intensity of a multitude of carcinogenic stimuli and inherent weaknesses (predisposition).

Stomach ulcers

Turning now to the [Edgar Cayce] readings on stomach ulcers, we find that in reading 39-1, the inciting agent was excessive mental stress which brought about changes in the nervous and muscular activity leading to impairment in organ function. First the spleen, heart, and solar plexus were affected and then the stomach. The exact role of the spleen in the process of digestion is not well defined but seems to have to do with enhancement of digestive juices.

Malpositioning of the stomach then occurred with disturbances in pyloric sphincter activity, regurgitation of food (and thus digestive pancreatic enzymes into the stomach, leading to lacerations and ulcerations.

The disturbed activity in the nervous system with attendant circulatory changes (these always go hand in hand) were responsible for a variety of symptoms and signs reflecting other organ system dysfunction, described in the reading.

In the majority of cases disturbances in assimilation and elimination were seen to be the underlying problem. The organs commonly involved are the stomach, pancreas, spleen, liver, kidneys, but other organs may also be reflexly involved.

Representative is case [732], in which there was deficiency in the secretions from the liver and gall bladder leading to overacidity and impaired circulation, and poor eliminations through the blood, lymphatics, and gut. Pyloric sphincter disturbance and regurgitation into the stomach seem to be fairly common features, either causing the ulceration or being an associated condition.

In case [3570] this disturbance in the digestion/assimilation was brought about by an "overloading of the system" (overeating?) and that the resulting abnormalities were being perpetuated by an inadequate diet consisting of just fruits and vegetables (more on this under "Rationale of Therapy").

A somewhat different mechanism in the pathogenesis of ulcers has its origin in lesions in the spine (of traumatic origin or otherwise) usually in the third to fifth dorsal centers. (4786-1, 5641-1) Impaired nervous impulses result in malpositioning of the stomach, over-acidity, sphincteric disturbances and ulcerations in the stomach. In reading 5641-1, this patient had even undergone corrective stomach surgery but continued to have problems because the problem in the spine had been overlooked.

Ulcers more often occurred at the lower end of the stomach, though in one instance (4786-1) the cardiac position (i.e., the upper portion) was involved and even the intake of water was quite painful. Widespread inflammation along the digestive tract may be seen as a complication.

Other mechanisms mentioned include deficiencies in the quality of the blood with functional abnormalities eventually leading to ulcerations (3768-1, 5440-1); cold and congestion settling in areas of weakness in the stomach thus producing ulcers. (5421-1)

In summary, ulcerations are brought about primarily by disturbances in the process of digestion, assimilation and elimination. Other causes include spinal lesions, mental stress, circulatory disturbances, etc., which again reduce to the basic triad seen in all the readings -- the digestive, nervous and circulatory systems. What affects one of these systems eventually affects the others if compensatory mechanisms are inadequate.

Physician's Reference Notebook [arebookstore.com] , William A. McGarey, M.D., pg 350-352


I think this explanation of the cause of ulcerations is much more plausible than "bacterial infection". YMMV. The chapter goes on to discus treatment options which are compatible with the Cayce health philosophy.

Thanks for your reply.

Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18759015)

Um... are we talking about the same Cayce who predicted (while channeling in trance) that in 1958 the US would discover the Death Ray that was used in Atlantis? The same one who said that China would be converted to Christianity by 1968? The same one who prescribed "bedbug juice" for heart failure, "fumes of apple brandy from a charred keg" for tuberculosis, and "the raw side of a freshly skinned rabbit, still warm with blood, fur side out, placed on the breast" for breast cancer.

Thanks, but I'll take a PPI for my ulcer and if I ever got breast cancer, I gotta say I'd go with Paclitaxel over bleeding bunny fur any day. The brandy thing... well maybe if I could drink it and not just inhale.

This is news for nerds, dude. Not for nuts.

Re:Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18763945)

The important thing about Cayce was that he was right more often than not. One or two of his sons wrote a book titled The Outer Limits of Edgar Cayce's Power, in which they covered all the things he said that were wrong/inaccurate/etc.

I've read good things about the brandy keg thing; not familiar with the "bedbug juice" or rabbit skin suggestions. I recently got the cd w/ the readings on it, so I will look sometime and see if there is any truth to this, and if so, the context provided (I'm currently away from the computer where they're installed). If the U.S. Feral Government developed a "death ray" thingy at one of their secret bases (e.g. Area 51), or in a project funded by one of the black budgets, do you think they would tell anyone? I think they'd keep it "on reserve" in case it was ever required. It's also possible that the principles behind such a device were re-discovered in that year, but the implications of the discovery were not realized for all potential applications.

This seems to be the source [reall.org] of your rejection of the Cayce material. I'm not impressed. If you want to trust half-wits and dipshits to think & make important decisions for you, that's fine with me. Be sure to take plenty of Nexium for teh Ulcer, and when you get teh stomach tumor (grandpa chomped down Prilosec® like it was candy), be sure to tell your doctor you want the stongest course of chemo available. Evolution at work, mmm hmm.

Re:Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18769815)

Um, no.

I've read about Cayce before. I actually remembered the Atlantis comment and certainly remembered that he'd come up with some total whackjob treatments. Though the remainder of the specifics was from:

http://skepdic.com/cayce.html [skepdic.com] http://www.straightdope.com/mailbag/mcayce.html [straightdope.com] http://psychicinvestigator.com/demo/ReinSkp4.htm [psychicinvestigator.com] (James Randi) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edgar_Cayce [wikipedia.org] (mostly the links)

And I'm sooooooo truly disappointed that you aren't impressed. However, when deciding who is trusting secondary sources you might want to consider: I don't have to ask my doctor since I am one and can read the research and judge for myself as well as using my own clinical experience. Now, I do ask my doctor because I value her judgment too and it nice to have that second opinion. What I don't do however, is listen to every half-baked conspiracy theorist and whack-job like yourself that thinks that putting eye-of-newt and a pinch of the hair of a newborn baby in a poultice made during the full moon is going to do jack shit.

But please feel free to further embarrass yourself: Cayce, Area 51, can I get a 'Gunman on the grassy knoll'?

Re:Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18774655)

I suppose you also believe that arab terrorists led by a former CIA asset hiding in a cave in afghanistan disabled the entire United States Defense Establishment (most of whom take their job _very_ seriously), and that those two airplanes were all it took to take down all three skyscrapers (the fire in WTC7 was, of course, caused by debree from WTC1 & 2, and a little bit of diesel is all it took to implode a steel building fire-rated to 1700+ degrees).

YHBT, you just haven't realized it yet. Hope the awakening isn't too rough. :)

p.s. There are threads on /. about Randi by people who've met the man. They say he's a fraud. :)

Re:Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18775047)

Actually I suspected you were a troll from your 2nd post about Cayce and because you are modding your own posts up with your other account (which must currently have mod points). However I also suspect with someone who has such a weak ego and so much time on his hands (like searching to find the single document that included all of my references about Cayce's head being up his ass) you might have an axe to grind the size of Wisconsin. Of course after having your ass handed to you, a coping mechanism might be claiming your posts were trolling.

Whatever slays your dragon, honey.

Incidentally, I saw WTC7 fall with my own eyes. I was chief resident in Emergency Medicine at Brooklyn's largest trauma center and NYPD was driving me and 6 other physicians and nurses to south of Canal to help. After we crossed the Brooklyn bridge I looked to my left and saw the top of WTC7 quiver then the whole thing collapsed.

I've met Randi too (once after a lecture) and I thought he was quite intelligent and funny. Sort of Jon Stewart of science rather than politics.

And I was the gunman on the grassy knoll too. (OK that last one was a lie.)

Re:Edgar Cayce???? You ARE kidding..... (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18776453)

My last post was a little rush, so I need to clarify a few things:

1. YHBT, not by myself, but by the Establishment. Military-Industrial, Medical-Industrial, etc. The goal of these establishments is to concentrate power (economic and otherwise) for themselves, and depower 'teh masses'.

2. I have one account on Slashdot. I'm not a big fan of the nick I chose, all those years ago, but I do like my UID. I don't need to mod up my own posts - sometimes moderators find value in what I've said, and sometimes they don't. My post in the previous thread got a -1, troll - if I had modpoints from other accounts, I'd be sure to rectify that. :)

3. Randi is a magician first. That means his modus operandi is deception. The slashdot story was on virtual worlds and ESP [slashdot.org] ...

Well, got to go again.. I've just a few more hours to spend with my girlfriend tonight - perhaps I will write more later.

You're kidding yourself. (1)

nido (102070) | more than 7 years ago | (#18788441)

Got back to my computer with the Cayce readings, and decided to look up the 'bedbug juices' and the application of rabbit fur you mentioned. There are five bedbug hits, four from the readings and one from a report. One of the hits says that the microorganism which causes Pyorrhea looks like a bedbug, but with longer legs, and gives instructions as to how this organism could be isolated. The other hits all recommended "bedbug juice":

Also would it be well for those properties as are given for such conditions, in the Homeopathic applications, be used, or what is COMMONLY called (though not of the extraction) bedbug juices - though these are for such conditions. We will find that this given in minute quantities will reduce this condition.

(5514-3) (bold in all quotes is my emphasis)
So, Cayce never recommended "bedbug juice", but a homeopathic preparation. YHBT, by someone who intentionally misquoted what Cayce's actually said.

It was a bit harder to find the rabbit recommendation, as cayce didn't actually say anything about the "the raw side of a freshly skinned rabbit". But here are a few quotes from readings I did find:

7. Then, for the abrasion, as produced this strain and does not heal, we would cover this with the fur from the rabbit, and as often as possible have this NEW, and as with the life still in same, see? This will bring the greater relief for this body, [4615]. Do that.

8. (Q) Should the fur be put on with the raw side next to the body?
(A) With the fur side OUT, for the animal heat will add, OR there may be prepared a serum from the infusion from the pus from this body injected into the rabbit, between the shoulder, and when this brings the infection, this injected or placed on the sore will heal, see? or the culture of same may be made and injected in the blood of this body.

(4615-1)
In this case, the rabbit skin was used like a bandage, it seems. You have other options today, 80 years after this reading was given.

4. In the gland region, under the arm, over the portion of the scapula, we would massage - GENTLY - each day - with those of the Iodex preparation, and keep from the irritation of clothing or pressures on same. We would keep covered with those of a young hare's fur, or rabbit fur - PREFERABLY that recently caught, or skinned; the skin, to be sure, prepared so that no infectious forces may arise from same.

(5662-1)
Again, the rabbit fur seems to be used as a bandage, after the massaging of the Iodex preparation [areclinic.org] . The rabbit fur is not the treatment itself. YHBT again. :)

(like searching to find the single document that included all of my references about Cayce's head being up his ass)

Googling "bedbug juice" for heart failure [google.com] turns up three documents.

HAND. :)

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

TheLink (130905) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748427)

I don't think there's a single cause for migraines.

Following are possible migraine causes I found interesting:
1) caffeine withdrawal
2) "hole in the heart" aka Patent Foramen Ovale.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748725)

It is very well known that there isn't a single 'cause' for migraines. What remains uncertain is what mechanism is causing the migraines. We already know that there are a multitude of triggers for migraine. What isn't understood is the how these triggers then all cause the arteries in the head to do something very painful, as well as cause neurological and systemic effects.

For your information, caffeïne withdrawal isn't considered migraine, as isn't a hangover. All three are considered 'vascular type head-aches', though. Changes in caffeïne intake (both up and down) can, however, cause migraines in people who are already prone to have migraines. The difference in symptomps is negligable, though.

(You seem to have been influenced by this: http://www.batnet.com/spencer/theory.html [batnet.com] article but it isn't scientific in setup and says so right of the bat, pun intended. :) As the article states, there is no scientific study to differentiate the types more precisely so I'll have to go on experience on this one.)

To me, it seems ever more likely that there is a underlying vascular disorder. More specifically and completely unscientifically, I suspect there is a problem in how neurotransmitters interact with vascular linings.

Anyway, I'm also very interested in the 'hole in the heart' idea that is being kicked around and as soon as there have been more trials I'll be sure to look in to it. For now, bloodpressure medication has all but eliminated my migraines so I have time.



Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

LDoggg_ (659725) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750323)

Anyway, I'm also very interested in the 'hole in the heart' idea that is being kicked around and as soon as there have been more trials I'll be sure to look in to it. For now, bloodpressure medication has all but eliminated my migraines so I have time.

Several years I also was on bloodpressure medication that seemed to lessen the frequency of my migraine attacks. However the side effect was that I seemed to be very tired and I started to put on weight. I quit taking the stuff but I've found the better shape I'm in the more frequent the migraines attack get.

Preventative medication seems the way to go but it's a catch-22. And stuff to treat the symptons at the onset or during are worthless. For example, I tried Imitrex and it turned what's normally a six-hour mirgraine into a 20-hour one complete with the usual nausea an wierd nervous reactions. Nothing short of a narcotic in the hospital can really dull the pain once the thing is in full swing.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750781)

First of all, let me express my sympathy. I too have suffered from migraines and occaisionally still do. I also used preventatitive medication and had all sorts of nasty side-effects. When I used propanolol, an old-school blood-pressure medication from the 'beta-blocker' category, I had the same side-effects as you did, and then some.

The blood-pressure medication I'm currently on, micardis (telmisartan), is of a completely different class: the angiotensine2-antagonists. Yes there are side-effects but I find them quite tolerable compared to the frequent severe migraines I had. Ymmv.

On the Imitrex I can say that I have found 'triptans', the category of medication Imitrex is in, to work quite well for me. Not everyone has had the same experience but I've never before heard someone describe the medication making an attack more severe. If you haven't, recently, perhaps you could consult a neurologist and try some of the newer variants in its class? Depending on where you live, you could also try to get some marinol or the more naturally occuring variants. In the latter case I would advise getting a vaporiser or using it as a tea. In doesn't take the pain away but it curbs nausea and allows you to cope far easier with the pain.

Other than that, I can only hope for the both of us that medical science will find out what is really happening and perhaps tackle the chain of events that lead to attacks at a much lower level.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18752041)

What I'm interested in is if there's a link with migraines. Hypertension medication is quite often helpfull in preventing or modulating migraine attacks in severe sufferers.

True. However, the antihypertensives that prevent migraines usually have direct actions on the central nervous system. Many of the beta blockers act on CNS beta receptors. Propranolol strongly blocks serotonin receptors and weakly blocks voltage gated ion channels. Verapamil (probably) blocks calcium signaling in neurons and glial cells. ACEIs and ARBs probably change levels of angiotensin converting enzyme and allied enzymes, which process more signaling mediators than merely angiotensin. A few unlucky bastards probably have a primary morphine deficiency, which is of course doomed to never be treated. It's complicated.

There seems to be concensus that it involves a chemical inflamation proces of arteries in the skull, though and if this proposition holds, that might explain how these medications work for migraines, too.

Blood vessels and inflammation are certainly involved, but it is increasingly less clear whether they are cause or effect. (Or both!)

For now, it is best to think of migraine as the inability of the brain's gray matter to maintain equilibrium. Gene association studies and inheritance studies show that many factors contribute. Some people seem to have hypersensitivity to stimuli, which knock the brain out of equilibrium too easily. Other brains clearly have trouble regaining equilibrium once it has been lost in extraordinary circumstances. A few unlucky people have a primary vascular disorder, sometimes even getting strokes.

Answers will have to wait for several thousand migraineurs to have their genes completely sequenced and compared. Until then it will mostly be guesswork.

Re:Heliobacter P. was controversial... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 7 years ago | (#18809147)

I'm sorry I'm so late in replying. I completely agree with your idea that migraine has to do with a disturbed equilibrium in the brain, perhaps in the neurotransmitter levels. That's part of the 'unknown mechanisms' I was talking about. You're also right about the uncertainty of the blood vessels being cause or effect, that's the 'poorly understood mechanisms' that I spoke of.

I wish I had a deeper understanding of the bio-chemistry involved, like you seem to have. It's a very interesting field of science and one that I'm directly affected by.

I'm hoping it won't take deep genetic research to find out what is causing the sensitivity for this disturbed balance, though, because that'll be quite a while. Perhaps some medical researcher will get a blinding flash of insight one day. One can hope.

makes sense (2, Interesting)

Blue Shifted (1078715) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748151)

the idea that hypertension is an inflammatory vascular disease of the brain is somewhat controversial.


aspirin is an anti-inflamatory...

aspirin also stop platelets (1)

DrYak (748999) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748807)

Aspirin also stops platelets, thus preventing blood clot to form and obstruction of arteries.

Re:makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748821)

aspirin is an anti-inflamatory...
As are many common analgesics [wikipedia.org] .

And even more evidence (4, Funny)

jandersen (462034) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748163)

Further research has shown that if you remove a person's brain entirely, his blood pressure drops to zero!! This is clearly conclusive evidence that the main cause of blood pressure is the brain.

Re:And even more evidence (1)

jb.cancer (905806) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748621)

Not necessarily. politicians have high blood pressure.

Re:And even more evidence (2, Funny)

Viceroy Potatohead (954845) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749145)

This is well known in the field of Zombology. We know that zombies are not motivated by "evil" or "bloodlust" or any other superstitious nonsense. In actuality, zombies eat brains in order to equalize pressure with their surroundings (I won't bore you with the complex dendrite:millibar relations). We're thinking of just rolling the whole science in with meteorology and taking a long vacation.

Re:And even more evidence (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18749507)

Ahh, but this is the dichotomy of the Zombie. You assert that it has no brain and quests to eat brains, yet if you shoot them in the head and blow the stuffing out (or pound them with a cricket bat), they cease to function. So what is in the head that animates the zombie?

(yeah, I caught Shaun this weekend while flipping channels...)

Answer this: (1)

ilovegeorgebush (923173) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748195)

Are these the same scientists that tell me milk can give me Cancer and that Eggs are bad for me one week, yet good for me another?

(Rhetorical question, FYI)

Re:Answer this: (2, Funny)

Kangburra (911213) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748211)

If it's a rhetorical question, how come there is a reply to this under it?

Note: This story has been adapted from a news release issued by University of Bristol. i.e. Dumbed down for normal people.

Re:Answer this: (1)

JonnyCalcutta (524825) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749515)

No, although there is a resemblance. The one you're thinking of has curly hair and was a bit darker.

About the egg thing, BTW - I would just lay off dairy for a while and give your digestive system time to settle down. I have the same problem with spicy food.

Re:Answer this: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18752633)

". . . Eggs are bad for me one week, yet good for me another?"

No, no, you misunderstood. Eggs are bad for you one week, yet good for you the SAME week. It's all part of the new quantum theory of medicine, where they do their animal testing using Schroedinger's cat.

Duh (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748213)

We all know stressed-out types get hypertension and not too many easy going, yoga types do. All this does is explain the exact chemistry by which some of us are ruining our bodies.

tfa says one cause (1)

ushering05401 (1086795) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748237)

The article is carefull to state that this could be one of several factors.

Consider this, my brother-in-law was a mellow dude who did scientific work outdoors in beautiful national parks. He ate healthily and got regular excercise as part of his workday. He had bad hypertension.

Re:tfa says one cause (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748281)

I don't have a stressful job and I eat healthy and take lots of walks to and from work (and on my lunch break too) but I got something called Conns syndrome. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conns_Syndrome [wikipedia.org]
Even with my pills I barely (most of the time I dont) get below 140/90. There are so many reasons why someone has high blood pressure but stressful living isnt a sure way to get it nor is a relaxed living a sure way not to have it.

Re:tfa says one cause (1)

Hal_Porter (817932) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748283)

Whereas I work in a basement for 60 hours a week with a load of ASSHOLES living off Pizza, coffee and Marlboro Extra Reds, do booze+coke at the weekends, and I'm as fit as a fiddle. Lol, exercise geeks, where is your God

AAAAAAAAGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHH FUC.......

Re:tfa says one cause (1)

olof_the_viking (1008247) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748555)

LOL! I for one welcome our hypertense, migraine-ridden overlords...

Re:tfa says one cause (2, Funny)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748297)

Consider this, my brother-in-law was a mellow dude who did scientific work outdoors in beautiful national parks. He ate healthily and got regular excercise as part of his workday. He had bad hypertension


i can see the stressors now:

OMG BEAR! RUN!
OMG BEES!
*wakes up* SCORPION ON MY FACE!
who knows.. maybe even DB cooper fell on his head.

Re:tfa says one cause (1)

owlnation (858981) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748531)

OMG BEES!
Relax, carry a mobile phone. Kills bees dead...apparently.

Re:Duh (1)

blakestah (91866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748405)

We all know stressed-out types get hypertension and not too many easy going, yoga types do. All this does is explain the exact chemistry by which some of us are ruining our bodies.

My impression is that adding cigarettes and an extra 50 pounds to that stressed-out type is the kicker.

Then it doesn't even matter if he is stressed out, his blood pressure is still through the roof.

Seriously, hypertension and obesity, and hypertension and smoking, good strong links.

Re:Duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748521)

Seriously, hypertension and obesity, and hypertension and smoking, good strong links.

How do you explain how thin people, who have never smoked in their life and aren't obese that exercise regularly and eat properly, have high blood pressure?

Re:Duh (1)

Petra_von_Kant (825352) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749125)

For the people that have not developed disease states through enviromental factors (both macro and micro) they tend to be genetically predisposed to develop hypertension (repeat for all other ailments).



"You've got a chart filling a whole wall with interlocking pathways
and reactions to shock and the researcher says "If I can just control
this one molecule/enzyme/compound I'll stop the whole negative
physiologic cascade of post haemorrhagic shock." Yeah, right."

Re:Duh (1)

blakestah (91866) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749207)

How do you explain how thin people, who have never smoked in their life and aren't obese that exercise regularly and eat properly, have high blood pressure?

Bad genetics. Or type 1 diabetes (which is also bad genetics). Stress as a contributing factor to steady hypertension (as opposed to spikes in blood pressure) is over-rated.

Re:Duh (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 7 years ago | (#18753697)

Oh well, in many cases obesity and excessive smoking are directly related to stress. Relaxed people tend to have time to think about their health.

Re:Duh (2, Interesting)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18754453)

I volunteer at a hippy clinic in San Francisco 2 days a week where I treat a disproportionately hippy population. And among this hippy population I have a number of thin, vegan, yoga-types who have: hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, etc. Making good choices is part of the battle, but unfortunately you can't choose your parents.

The one thing I will say is that hippies with hypertension are much less likely to have well controlled hypertension. They are much more likely to insist that if they do X more yoga or eat Y more fiber they can get their BP under control. Unfortunately thats usually not possible. So they refuse to take old, safe, cheap medicines like atenolol because they see their hypertension as a personal failure.

Take medicines when they are necessary and helpful, but not when they aren't either. My best rule of thumb is that you are allowed one chronic medicine for every decade you are old - if you are taking more than that without good reason (like having HIV, heart failure, etc), you probably need to prune the medicines bush a bit.

If 600 Million people are hypertensive, then (1)

ThoreauHD (213527) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748309)

maybe there's a reason for it. When the bombs fall, the fat people will inherit the earth. I don't think correcting what we don't like is always the most insightful thing to do. If nature didn't want 1 in 10 people with hypertension, she would have killed their asses by now.

Re:If 600 Million people are hypertensive, then (1)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 7 years ago | (#18748613)

well until then theyre lobbing lawsuits for things like:

"mcdonalds wont make me STOP EATING"

or

"omg im too fat for teh airplane seat!, its the airlines' fault!"

Re:If 600 Million people are hypertensive, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18748875)

Nature's trying, it's just that we keep fighting her to cure these things. The whole argument doesn't work because humans have purposely allowed our weak and defective to breed, ruining natural selection for our species. We won't continue to evolve until we decide to "let nature take its course" as it were.

Re:If 600 Million people are hypertensive, then (1)

vtcodger (957785) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749597)

***If nature didn't want 1 in 10 people with hypertension, she would have killed their asses by now.***

Yeah, the article says there are 600 million hypertensives and we all know (or think we know) that there are 6,000,000,000 people on the planet. But that six billion is rather strongly biased toward children, teenagers, and young adults who rarely have hypertension even if they will develop it later in life. So nature is out to get more than one in ten. Maybe more like one in six -- one in four among US non-hispanic 'caucasians' -- one in three among americans of African American descent.

Re:If 600 Million people are hypertensive, then (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18752735)

You're right, it would have, and it sure as hell is still trying. The fact that the number is 600 million with hypertension and not a lot less doesn't prove that nature wants people to have hypertension (or is at least indifferent to it), it proves that there are a lot of people who have high blood pressure and we must be doing a fairly good job of treating it.

I am an intern at a pharmacy that services nursing homes and probably 1/4 of the medications I deal with are for hypertension (off topic: and probably another one quarter to one third are for pain). The sheer number of mechanisms for treating hypertension that we exploit in an effort to reduce blood pressure speaks to this fact.

If you're curious, these are all the types and some examples that I could think of:

Loop-diuretics (increase urination, thereby decreasing blood plasma volume): Lasix (furosemide)
Beta blockers (decrease force and rate of heart contraction): Toprol (metoprolol)
ACE (Angiotensin Converting Enzyme) Inhibitors (inhibit the enzyme that cleaves Angiotensin I to II - Angiotensin II is a vasoconstrictor): Zestril (Lisinopril)
Calcium Channel blockers (decrease force of heart contraction): Norvasc (amlodipine)

And one more I forgot:

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (blocks binding of AGT II to its effective receptor): Cozaar (losartan)

I have observed many patients on several types of antihypertensives, and I think this is clear evidence that hypertension is obviously one of nature's methods of negative selection.

Remember - stroke, aneurysms, and heart attack are all complications of chronic (or maybe even acute) hypertension.

Jam-1 (1)

RiddleofSteel (819662) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749001)

Well the protein is called Jam-1, of course it's clogging arteries with a name like that!

Re:Jam-1 (1)

mrorange764 (972356) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750627)

SIR we're being jammed! .... Raspberry, only one man would DARE give me the raspberry... Lone Sta..HURK (end heart attack)

No surprise to me (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749697)

The notion that a problem in the brain can cause hypertension is no news to me. My mother was hypOtensive her whole life, so much so that when I was a kid I remember her randomly passing out. A blood pressure reading of 80 over 40 was high for her all her life.

In her early 60s, she tripped, hit her head on a brick, and got a concussion. Immediately, her BP shot up to, say, 200 over 150. It stayed there for years. Now that she's in her 70s, it's finally gotten down to a "slightly high of normal" range.

The doc at the time told us she had damaged the part of the brain that controls blood pressure. Was he just trying to sound authoritative or has it been common knowledge for a long time that brain functions can cause hypertension? My impression was the latter. I'd be surprised if I was wrong.

Re:No surprise to me (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18752291)

Was he just trying to sound authoritative or has it been common knowledge for a long time that brain functions can cause hypertension?

Yes. The drug blood pressure drug clonidine works by stimulating the feedback pathway that the central nervous system uses to tell how hard it is asking the heart to work.

Re:No surprise to me (1)

gnuman99 (746007) | more than 7 years ago | (#18754535)

"Old" news then - http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4361802.stm [bbc.co.uk]

The new thing in the current news is that it is not the brain, but immune system that causes problems with blood flow in the brain which causes the brain to increase pressure to fix the flow.

Re:No surprise to me (1)

NIckGorton (974753) | more than 7 years ago | (#18754727)

He was just bullshitting you. The brain controls a lot of stuff in the body, and it certainly modulates blood pressure significantly. However, there isn't a single part of the brain that controls BP to that extent that you can damage with a concussion. However, what is more likely (and common) is that despite starting with a low BP, your mom aged and developed age related hypertension which was first discovered when she had a visit due to the injury.

With all due respect (1)

BenEnglishAtHome (449670) | more than 7 years ago | (#18767617)

I must disagree. My mom has had a variety of ailments over the years (lost an eye as a kid and has had to fight various resulting problems; lots of other things) and low blood pressure has always been one of them. She has had a BP cuff and regularly used it and recorded her readings for decades. Before he died, my dad took the readings. After his death, I did. Ever since automated cuffs became available she has had one and used it regularly. Her visits to the doctor always included a BP reading and those visits happened no less often that twice a year (I'd guess an average of once a quarter would be about right) since she was about 40. We have solid records of her BP for decades prior to the injury; any age-related change, however gradual, would have been noted long before the injury.

The facts as I know them are not in dispute. She had very low blood pressure. She got a concussion. Instantly, she had extremely high blood pressure. (And I mean that "instantly" quite literally. She had high BP at the ER that was dismissed because she had just been through something traumatic, but her BP stayed up the next day and the pattern was set.) The change to a high BP lasted a couple of years before it started to trend down. (Interestingly to me, NONE of the drug therapies her doctors tried for the next couple of years did squat. Whatever mechanism was causing her BP to be high simply was not addressed by the drugs then available and, frankly, I think they tried every pharmaceutical under the sun.) Granted, correlation is not causation, but in this case it's the only explanation for the sudden change.

This explains alot (1)

SargeantLobes (895906) | more than 7 years ago | (#18749829)

Hypertension has always been associated with a higer risk for Ischemic Stroke (CVA [wikipedia.org] ). Whereas high cholesterol has been associated with corornary infarctions (because of artherscelerosis [wikipedia.org] ).

This article suggests that the underlying principle underlying both, is the same (clogging of arteries). Which for me as a med-student is pretty damn cool to read, since the hypertension-CVA connection is pretty poorly understood.

P.S. Artherosclerosis is caused by white bloodcells being absorbed into the blood wall and consequently absorbing cholesterol (thereby getting trapped). So it's actually very similar.

It makes sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18750353)

I found about my hypertension when I was 18 (now 26). It's a disease present in my family (both my father and his father have/had it). I can say it certainly has some connection with brain activity. From experience, when focusing on something I can feel my blood pressure skyrocketing (with aching in rear part of head where some blood vessels are). I even managed to control it over years - by means of often relaxation periods and not having thinking bursts for long periods (makes me slower though :) - and it automagically tends to keep my blood pressure at lower levels.

It makes sense that brain increases blood pressure when there isn't much oxagen. Well, cardiologists even send people to ultrasonic imaging of neck artheries as this can cause problems hypertension, it is plausible that some other problem can cause same thing. Brain uses lots of oxygen, so it probably has highest influence on how much blood pressure is affected.

If they can find a treatment for this inflammation (is it auto-immune disease?), it might increase quality of life of a huge proportion of world's population, including myself. Current medicines aren't really effective: body tends to adapt to them and they screw up methabolism a bit.

Re:It makes sense (1)

lord_mike (567148) | more than 7 years ago | (#18751001)

I ti s well known that after a stroke, blood pressures skyrocket temporarily in the brain's attempt to force as much blood and oxygen to the brain. In fact, it is recommended NOT to lower the blood pressure during this acute phase, because doing so might actually increase brain damage.

So, the article makes perfect sense to me.

Thanks,

Mike

Re:It makes sense (1)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18765769)

seams indeed verry logic The heart is only a pump and controled (altough be it indirectly) by the brain
(as the heart has its own neuron muscle trigger path.)But basicly it has to keep up the oxygen flow. The most demanding organ in this is the brain itself.
The brain controls even a neuron path in the neck to keep the blood presure always constant (when you go from standing to sitting it is used)

Humans have even a diving reflex that keeps the blood in most importend parts under a constant pressure (despite the fact that swimming water adds extra pressure).... the few organs who kept constant includes our brain.

Our brain can activly control presure based on our suroundings, sit down in a lazy chair and watch a good football game. Most likely your heartbeat will change too. If the game get's rough, your brain raises pressure as it might be (as an instinct) in the middle of a tough dangerous game, and so more oxygen is used, It is a bit primitive reaction.

But i wonder how many people are in a stress environment and thus have their instincts constantly on allert....
Also if your often under stress, most likely you adpet to it, meaning your tolerating this added presure you dont return back easily anymore.

increase blood flow (1)

wytcld (179112) | more than 7 years ago | (#18750617)

"We are looking at the possibility of treating those patients that fail to respond to conventional therapy for hypertension with drugs ... increase blood flow within the brain."

So would gingko biloba [howtodothings.com] lower blood pressure? It's well-known to increase blood flow to the brain. There's doubt that this does anything, as has been claimed, to improve memory. But due to the extensive marketing based on that claim it's widely available, cheap, comes in standardized doses.... Since blood-pressure gauges are also widely available and cheap, it would be fairly simple for even an undergrad to set up a good double-blind study and, if the results pan out, write up a nice little popular book that all the supplement shops would carry, and you nearly have a career.

Think lower (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 7 years ago | (#18751031)

I got diagnosed with hypertension about four years ago. Went to the ER -my first DR visit of _any_ type in 17 years- because I had a huge subcutaneous boil on a testicle. I didn't know it was a boil at the time of course.

You can laugh all you want. It hurt like hell. And more. And even trying to tell a nurse or doc what the hell was wrong was painful. It sounds obscene. But it also hurts worse so there's a point where you don't give a damn what it sounds like, you just want it fixed.

In the process of checking that out, they told me my BP was 300 over 160, which apparently means I should have been dead. I was also told I had type 2 diabetes. The sugar level was 250, I think. My cholesterol was bad too. It was a very fun day.

Anyway, I got put on antibiotics, anti-hypertensives, a couple different diabetic medications, and so on and so forth. The infection went away, the BP has dropped down -it was 130 over 74 this morning- and my sugar is now around 100-120 usually.

I have since learned I can sort of meditate and drop my BP by 15 or 20 points. It comes in handy at DR visits which are full of that "white coat effect" problem. It works better than the diuretic I take, which has mostly stopped working now after three years. My kidneys have adjusted. It no longer has any effect on me.

I am not sure there's a point to this post.

My health problems are all tied to lifestyle. The doctors keep after me to lose weight, exercise, bring numbers down so I will be healthier and live longer. But my life sucks and I fucking hate it and it's never going to improve -pushing 40 now never having gone on a date much less gotten laid, no education, nothing to look forward to, and I don't WANT to live an extra minute of it. So I have no incentive to do anything to improve my health.

brain connection to hyperspace (1)

PermanentMarker (916408) | more than 7 years ago | (#18765643)

Well that would probaply have been a verry intresting read, but i was mistaken....
Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?