Brownstone Journal

Brownstone Institute

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

  1. 51 min ago

    The Shocking Damage Caused by Covid Policies Horrifying New Research into Damage from Covid Lockdowns Every Possible Outcome Got Worse Under Lockdowns

    By Ian Miller at Brownstone dot org. The Covid lockdowns may not have been remotely effective, but at least they harmed millions of people and created long-lasting negative impacts that we're still dealing with today. That's the conclusion of a massive new body of research into the nonsensical policies promoted by the public health "expert" class, promoted by their media partners, and enacted by incompetent, cowardly politicians. Mask mandates had been thoroughly discouraged by decades of pre-Covid pandemic planning. There was no body of research supporting the closing of certain businesses at different hours of the day, as many jurisdictions demanded. No studies were conducted on the reduction of infection rates resulting from placing directional arrows on the floors of grocery stores to direct people through aisles in predetermined patterns. There were no randomized controlled trials on closing skate parks and beaches, arresting people surfing alone in the ocean, restricting capacity to random percentages based on inaccurate assumptions of community spread. We had no idea whether closing schools would be effective or "save lives," but we did it anyway. We didn't know if vaccine passports would actually have a meaningful impact on community spread, yet we were encouraged to push that too. All these "interventions" started with little-to-no evidence. That's bad enough. What makes it much worse? That we implemented them all with zero consideration of possible side effects resulting from those policies. Lockdowns were an unprecedented incursion on freedom and liberty. What would that do to society, the economy, mental health, and so on? It appeared that no one involved gave those considerations a second thought, and now we're paying the price. A massive new systematic review of over 130 studies of Covid policies was published recently in Health Affairs Scholar by writers from the Department of Health Policy, Richard M. Fairbanks School of Public Health in Indianapolis, synthesizing the research into ancillary outcomes from lockdowns, school closures, and other mandates. The goal of this systematic review was to find the "unintended health effects" resulting from those policies. Essentially, putting Covid aside, what were the results when it came to various important measures of health? They write that while policymakers and public health authorities have produced years of reports and lectures on the importance of mandates and lockdowns in reducing viral transmission, there's a large "gap in the literature" regarding what other impacts may have resulted from "shelter-in-place/stay-at-home orders, workplace closures, and school closures." While peer-review isn't a guarantee of accuracy, all 132 studies included in the analysis were peer-reviewed. Those 132 studies resulted in finding over 450 unique outcomes. And spoiler alert, the overwhelming majority of those outcomes were negative. What makes their results even more infuriating is that there was, as they explain, "very low quality" evidence that lockdowns would be effective, as well as a "lack of information on potential unintended downstream consequences." Yet decision-makers plowed forward anyway, despite the "serious ethical, economic, health equity, and human rights concerns" resulting from such policies. Not to mention that the researchers found that lockdowns had "little to no effect on COVID-19 mortality," the most important stated goal of lockdowns. Stay home, save lives, the mantra went. Turns out, like so many other government messages, that this was completely and utterly incorrect. So we've established that there was no reduction in Covid mortality from lockdowns, very low quality evidence supporting lockdowns in the first place, and an overwhelming majority of studies found negative side effects from those policies. All great news so far. But it gets even better when examining what those negative side effects actually were, and how widespread those results were...

    8 min
  2. 1 day ago

    Major Journal under Fire for Omitting Pfizer's Failed Flu Data in Seniors Burying Data The Eric Rubin Problem What Should Happen Next? The Real Issue Now

    By Maryanne Demasi at Brownstone dot org. This week, I reported that Pfizer's mRNA flu shot offered almost no clinical benefit in adults aged 18–64 — and that the harms were more significant than the headlines suggested. But that was not the full story. The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) did not publish any data from the older adults in the same trial — the very population most at risk from influenza and the main reason these vaccines exist. Instead, the over-65 results were quietly uploaded to ClinicalTrials.gov, where they sat buried on a government website, out of sight and far from the scrutiny that comes with publication in a leading medical journal. When MIT professor Retsef Levi discovered the missing cohort while reviewing the trial documents, he was stunned — not only by what the data showed, but by what it means when a flagship journal selectively reports findings that may directly shape public health decisions. What he told me calls into question not just this study, but the integrity of the system that allowed it to happen. Levi said the missing data in the NEJM article was "puzzling," adding that "it seems like the reason for omitting the older participants was because the results were not favourable for the studied mRNA vaccine." The trial enrolled about 27,000 participants aged 65 and older. Their data make it clear: Pfizer's mRNA flu shot did not outperform the traditional flu shot in the elderly. On top of that, Pfizer's shot caused slightly higher rates of mild-to-moderate local and systemic reactions — injection-site pain, fatigue — consistent with the well-known reactogenicity profile of mRNA products. Levi said omitting data from this group was "unacceptable, especially since the over-65s are among the high-risk populations that influenza vaccines aim to protect." He did not soften his criticism of NEJM's role. "It's either gross negligence in the review process, or worse, scientific misconduct," said Levi, questioning how the public can trust a journal "if its review process either misses or hides major results in the trial." Rather than presenting the full dataset in the journal, Pfizer uploaded the unfavourable results on ClinicalTrials.gov, where they remained effectively invisible to clinicians and the public. Levi said there was no question this was an egregious oversight. "I do not see how NEJM can argue that the published article is transparent, when results are selectively reported, and moreover, negative results are not reported." The failure to publish the older cohort's results has now placed NEJM — and its Editor-in-Chief, Dr Eric Rubin — under intense scrutiny. Levi said, "I think that what we see here is a clear failure of the NEJM's review process and integrity, and the ultimate responsibility rests with the Editor in Chief…Dr Rubin should be expected to provide a clear explanation as to how this has happened." Dr Eric Rubin presided over the decision to publish a Pfizer trial stripped of its most important age group, allowing a reputed journal to become complicit in the same selective reporting practices that have long undermined scientific publishing. Rubin also sits on the FDA's Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee (VRBPAC) — the same committee that may one day review Pfizer's biological licence application for this very product. His track record during the pandemic has been fraught. In a 2021 VRBPAC meeting on Covid-19 vaccines for children, Rubin dismissed concerns about unknown safety gaps, saying, "We're never going to learn about how safe the vaccine is unless we start giving it. And that's just the way it goes." NEJM under his leadership also published the pivotal AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine trial — a paper that omitted adverse event data. One of those missing cases involved participant Brianne Dressen, whose severe neurological complications were removed from the trial records. Dressen personally contacted Rubin asking him to correct the record a...

    6 min
  3. 2 days ago

    Charles Augustus Leale, Abraham Lincoln, and the Physician We Are Slowly Losing The Doctor as a Moral Figure When Medicine Became an Industry Covid-19 and the Fracture of Trust What Still Remains The Lesson of Charles Augustus Leale References

    By Joseph Varon at Brownstone dot org. When Abraham Lincoln was shot, America saw more than just the loss of a President. Something quieter happened that night, but it was just as important. People saw the kind of doctor that society once truly respected. Doctor Charles Augustus Leale was just 23 years of age when he walked into Ford's Theatre on April 14, 1865. He had finished medical school only weeks before and was assigned to the theater because the President would be there. By the end of that night, his name was forever linked to one of America's most tragic events. As soon as the gunshots rang out, panic took over the theater. People screamed, soldiers rushed in, and confusion filled the room. In the middle of it all, Leale climbed into Lincoln's box and faced a scene that most doctors would remember forever. Years later, he described the moment with remarkable simplicity: "As I looked at the President, he appeared to be dead." He then added, "As the President did not respond, I thought about the other form of death, apnoea, and I assumed my preferred position to revive by artificial respiration." Those initial sentences stand out. Simple, honest, and very human. They do not sound planned or practiced. They sound like a young doctor facing a disaster, trying to make sense of what he saw as it happened. Leale did not freeze. He immediately acted. He quickly checked Lincoln's head wound, cleared a blood clot to ease the pressure, opened the airway with his fingers, and tried artificial respiration with the methods he knew. Historians still debate whether he performed an early form of cardiac massage, but that seems less important now. What matters most is that he acted right away to help. He acted as a real doctor. There was a time when doctors, like Charles Augustus Leale, held a special place in society. People didn't just see them as skilled professionals. They saw them as moral leaders. Communities trusted doctors not because they were always right, but because patients felt doctors truly cared about them, not just the system. Leale had no protocol to follow that evening. No committee advised him. No administrator stood nearby explaining liability concerns. No electronic medical record demanded documentation. There was no legal department, no compliance office, no billing specialist, and no corporate structure surrounding him. There was simply a physician, a dying patient, and a sense of duty. Medicine today feels very different. Today's healthcare is full of amazing technology. We can use machines to support organs, read genomes, use artificial intelligence for diagnosis, and keep people alive in ways we couldn't imagine years ago. Intensive care units now look like engineering labs. But even with all this progress, many patients say healthcare feels impersonal and cold. People often leave medical encounters feeling processed rather than cared for. We shouldn't pretend that medicine in the 1800s was perfect. Doctors in Leale's time didn't have antibiotics, ventilators, modern anesthesia, or many of the treatments we take for granted now. Death rates were very high. Still, medicine back then often felt much more personal, and that quality now seems at risk. Yet, the doctor belonged to the patient. Now, many doctors feel like they belong to large systems instead of their own practices. This change didn't happen all at once. Over many years, medicine slowly turned from a calling into an industry. Hospitals became big businesses. Doctors became employees. Patients became consumers. Even the way we talk about healing started to sound like business talk. Doctors now hear words like throughput, optimization, efficiency, productivity targets, and market share more often than words like presence, reflection, or bedside intuition. Even the words we use for doctors have changed. More and more, doctors are called "providers," a term so bland that it could just as easily describe a cable or internet company. When that happened,...

    12 min
  4. 2 days ago

    Jailed for Hantavirus Exposure

    By Richard Kelly at Brownstone dot org. A flurry of excitement has gripped news services in the last week or so as several groups of 'ISIS Brides' arrived back in Australia, from parts of the Middle East. The actions of these women have caused consternation, to say the least, among Australians who consider that giving support and comfort to terrorists is at best an error of judgment. Some were arrested, others were not. Some had scuffling supporters to welcome them, others arrived more or less unnoticed. Various opinions were voiced, or whispered, about what ought to have happened. Politicians did what politicians do. Talking heads talked. At least two things became clear – they are real people, with friends and critics, and they are newsworthy. Nothing like a jostling crowd bumping into cameramen and reporters as the main characters barge their way through the arrivals hall blinking into the sunlight of the concourse, trying to spot an Uber to whisk them away, for a TV news item. Newsworthiness is a difficult thing to define. I suppose newspaper editors and TV producers routinely make what to the naïve public look like heartless calls on what to leave out of the day's edition. (And moronic calls on what to include.) Indeed, the content of a paper or a nightly news bulletin is as instructive for what is not mentioned as it is for the items that do get a run. One gets a picture of what kind of overall story or stories the editor or proprietor feels most comfortable portraying. It is tempting to draw further conclusions from this kind of analysis about the motives behind the stance – but without further facts any conclusion would be just speculation. Not that there's anything wrong with speculation – sometimes it's all we have to go on. When the story is NOT run, what are we to make of that? Imagine a set of circumstances whereby a real family or group of friends was taken from a cruise ship mid-holiday and forcibly dressed in plastic overalls, masked, paraded across tarmacs, flown back to Australia, and detained indefinitely in a purpose-built stalag in Western Australia. It's the Hantavirus, don't you know. Not infection, just contact-traced. Surely newsrooms would be frantic with activity, already looking beyond the smug claim from the federal Health Minister Mark Butler that these people would be subject to quarantine measures he boasted to be the toughest in the world. "I do make no apology for the fact this is one of the stronger approaches you'd see around the world," he said, adding some countries are only quarantining passengers for a few days. That kind of sound bite is good for a 20-second item on the telly. But the whole thing is a goldmine. Stories for months; even a cadet reporter could knock up a list of angles as long as Victoria's lockdowns (262 days, lest we forget): Who are they? What are their names? Are they related to each other? What was the rest of their holiday going to be? How long had they been planning it? Was it the trip of a lifetime? Are they missing their dog? Did they have other things they needed to be doing? Is their internet access working? How often are they Facetiming the grandkids? Are they getting exercise? Do they like the food they are being served? Do they have a GoFundMe to pay for the rent they can't afford because they can't work? Has their small business gone bankrupt yet? Will they be able to claim compensation or sue the Department of Foreign Affairs or the Health Department for locking them up? Have their pre-existing medical conditions remained in check, or have they deteriorated? Have they missed an important event like a wedding or the birth of a granddaughter? Newsrooms ought to be covering their plight. That they are not is proof that they are not regarded as newsworthy. Having reached that conclusion, we are back to wondering why. According to my calculations, these Australians are about 2 weeks into their 'at least 3 weeks' nightmare. No questions have been put to the P...

    5 min
  5. 3 days ago

    Since Lockdowns, a 12% GDP Loss; Half of US Dollar Purchasing Power Stolen

    By Jeffrey A. Tucker at Brownstone dot org. Many of us have had the intuition that the economic damage from 2020 – including industrial stoppages, monetary printing, supply-chain disruptions, extended school closures, and general population demoralization – was in fact far greater than official statistics indicate. What follows will shore up this intuition, using new techniques and numbers from an innovative project called RealityIndex.co. It's true that official data is bad enough, showing a 26% loss in purchasing power, slow growth in output, and only marginal improvements in real income. The labor participation rate and worker/population ratio never fully recovered and continue to fall. Output has been lackluster. It's supposedly running 2.3% which is about half the postwar norm for US economic performance. It feels like a general downshift. Official data shows a brief recession in 2020 followed by gradual economic recovery overall. But is this even true? In 2024, Brownstone Institute commissioned a study (by E.J. Antoni and Peter St. Onge) that concluded that we have never really entered recovery after 2022. We've been in a technical recession since that time. They got this with some limited adjustments of price data bumped up against output data. That study was met with brutal attacks, with every critic falling back on official data and doubting the supposed extremism of the conclusion. That's where matters have stood even as reports pour in concerning broken labor markets, no raises for 1 in 4 professional-class workers, and sketchy Gross Domestic Product (GDP) data that seems barely above zero thanks mainly to medical-sector subsidies, government spending, and social services. Then there are the learning losses showing dramatic declines in test scores among affected students. We are left with real questions. How can consumer sentiment be at historic lows given that the overall data seems to raise no loud alarms? In the meantime, Artificial Intelligence has come along to make these complicated calculations possible, ones that seek to discern and delineate the huge gaps between official data and reality. The goal is to come up with real data concerning real prices, sans the many different methods that the Department of Labor uses to adjust price changes. For example, housing prices are not measured directly but rather converted to owners' equivalent rent (OER). Medical service prices are adjusted for consumption, not premiums or final bills. When consumers substitute one good for another, that is also factored in. When the quality of a good or service improves, the statisticians apply what they called hedonic adjustments, which are invariably designed to minimize price increases and never run the other direction. Where does this leave those of us who are looking for a plain index of prices? A veil has been put over that basic question and answer, such that we don't know for sure. This matters tremendously for issues like raises, examining cost of living increases, taxes, and pension payments. Everything is adjusted for inflation to convert it to real valuations but if we don't have a clear number, what are we to do? This is why we should be thrilled about a new study/service called the Reality Index. You are free to browse the site yourself and examine every aspect of the method. Essentially, the site owner, an independent intellectual in Madrid, Tom Elliott, has deployed tools of AI to wholly reconstruct price indices in a way that is consistent with actual prices. His results are absolutely eye-popping. I've examined the method here in detail and found no fault. The Wall Street Journal has also taken notice. This is good news and raises the possibility that we can finally get to the truth. The core of the problem is a constantly changing methodology in official data. The formula was changed eight times over 35 years. All the changes seem technical and vaguely justifiable, once explained. Adding them all up, you get...

    14 min
  6. 3 days ago

    Moderna Is Building a Modified mRNA "Vaccine" for Ebola Bundibugyo References

    By Jessica Rose at Brownstone dot org. Predictably, Moderna has secured up to $60 million from the Coalition for Epidemic Preparedness Innovations (CEPI) to accelerate development of an Ebola "vaccine" amid an ongoing outbreak in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, where there have been 282 confirmed cases, 42 deaths, and around 1,100 suspected cases, plus nine confirmed cases (one fatal) in Uganda. In case you didn't know, CEPI is the brainchild of the WEF (conceived in 2015; launched in 2017) and co-founded (and co-funded with US$460 million) from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and the Wellcome Trust. This seems a little odd to me considering that Ebola is highly containable and Bundibugyo has a lower CFR than Zaire. CEPI plans to advance their modified mRNA candidate to trials within months, while also funding other candidates (Oxford/Serum Institute and IAVI), though development remains unpredictable amid a challenging "security environment," including local resistance such as the recent burning of an Ebola treatment center over burial protocols. Yeah. Let's not consider that these are people whose lives are being destroyed because we need our precious "vaccine." According to the latest, apparently there are some locals who simply want to bury their loved ones – to send them off to the afterlife in a non-space kinda suit way. Now, don't get me wrong! Ebola peeps must indeed be handled with appropriate care, but there is always a happy medium and "authorities" must consider that these aren't simply "dead patients" – they are people. Brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers, etc. – all victims of God-knows-what shenanigans are going on in the world of ebola biowarfare. I am sorry to put it this way but after everything I've seen, read, and been put through, I cannot believe that government-sanctioned dual-use technology is not the reason for most of the "outbreaks" going on in the world. Especially in Africa. Sigh. I can only imagine what they're being put through over there. It almost makes me want to space suit up and go over to find out. Let's look closer at the Moderna product. By the way, Moderna has been playing with the development of a modified mRNA ebola "vaccine" since 2018. In guinea pigs. This new "vaccine" indeed is going to be a plug-and-play product whereby Bundibugyo ebola genes are going to be swapped in as the coding template (as opposed to spike genes in the case of the Covid-19 shots), all snug as bugs in those nasty LNPs. This was always going to the next play, and if I might say so, the forever forward play. Save money, save time, do inevitably crappy rushed trials. Which makes it kind of weird that $50 million is going to "preclinical testing and Phase I trials." Boy, I would love to see the details of that clinical trial budget – both direct and indirect costs. Financial support. This work was supported by a research grant from Moderna Therapeutics (A. B.) and National Institutes of Health (grant number 1R01AI102887-01A1) (A. B.). CEPI dude (see: Dr Richard Hatchett, CEO of CEPI) said that injectable products against Bundibugyo could be ready for trials within a couple of months, "leveraging" Moderna's established mRNA platform. You don't say. CEPI has committed up to US$50 million for preclinical testing and Phase 1 clinical trials. CEPI will support simultaneous manufacturing of doses to enable large-scale Phase 2/3 trials to begin immediately if Phase 1 data supports progression. This candidate uses the same fast, flexible, scalable mRNA technology validated during COVID-19 and builds upon Moderna's existing R&D on related Ebola viruses. The collaboration leverages CEPI's existing strategic partnership with Moderna. [4] Strategic partnership, eh? I wonder what the controls will be? You can sign up today! You have until June 12! I'm kidding. Just look at this reassuring statement with those all-too-familiar words that send a shudder through my body now! The safety data accumulated with the pl...

    7 min
  7. 4 days ago

    The Trouble with Health Science Reporters I. How Mainstream Health Science Reporters Systematically Mistreat Members of the Medical Freedom Community II. They Should Know Better III. Sane People Should Be Able to Have a Rational Conversation about These

    By Toby Rogers at Brownstone dot org. We live in a time of transition. The old paradigms are failing and new paradigms with greater explanatory power are struggling to be born. Standing in the breach are mainstream health science reporters. They tend to be progressive, just out of college, with little to no graduate education. A quick look at their LinkedIn pages suggests that they were elated to get what appear to be prestigious jobs for Stat News, KFF, Politico, the New York Times, or any of the hundreds of Pharma-funded narrative enforcement (aka "fact-check") organizations that sprang up during Covid. They're just smart enough to be arrogant but not wise enough to know what they don't know. Then they get assigned a story about some facet of the vaccine debate where they encounter a group of people who think very differently than they do — and they suddenly lose all sense of decency. Proper reporting, back when that was still taught, would require sufficient research to accurately describe the viewpoint of this different social tribe. "Position switching" (putting oneself in the shoes of another) is the basis of empathy and a slightly more experienced reporter would do everything possible to view the world through the eyes of his/her interviewee. A skilled reporter might even try to "steel man" this alternative perspective to find the strengths of the opposing argument rather than exaggerating weaknesses that do not accurately represent the views of the people being studied. Proper editors, back when that was still a thing, would not sign off on an article until the reporter had gotten to the heart of the matter and captured the essence of the other worldview. But none of that happens in health science reporting today. Instead, these wet-behind-the-ears reporters all follow the same script — 'anyone who disagrees with the mainstream narrative must be a nutter who could not possibly be understood by anyone in polite society.' Mainstream health science reporters almost never interview the parents of vaccine-injured children or vaccine-injured people themselves about their injuries. Any reporter who does so quickly resorts to gaslighting as a way of managing their internal distress. These reporters often seek the opinions of doctors, lawyers, scientists, and others with advanced degrees. Yet if any scholar contradicts the mainstream narrative, he or she will be portrayed like a homeless schizophrenic person spinning in circles and talking nonsense (actually, schizophrenics are treated infinitely better than vaccine skeptics by mainstream health science reporters because schizophrenics don't threaten the narrative). In the movement for medical freedom, we have thousands of peer-reviewed sources, nearly everything we do is public, and our work is meticulous because we get torn to shreds for decades by the Big Pharma media machine if we ever make any mistakes. But mainstream health science reporters almost never actually read our work. It's not that they disagree with us — they never read enough of our work to even understand our position (at most, they do a quick search to find a "gotcha quote" that they can pull out of context and wield like a bludgeon). So their bias leads to bad methods that they try to cover up by portraying us as shadowy conspirators whose beliefs are indecipherable. This extreme "othering" has become a requirement of the mainstream health science reporting profession. Nearly all of these reporters are progressives who should know better. If their undergraduate education was anything like mine, it likely included extensive lectures, readings, and research papers on the importance of not "othering" people, the grave injustice of bigotry, the evils of colonialism, and America's long history of exploitation and violence. But the progressive worldview today makes an exception for vaccine skeptics who are treated with systematic contempt as a requirement of the faith. Furthermore, to the progressive mind, it ...

    9 min
  8. 4 days ago

    Detours and Missteps on the Road to Medical Advances

    By Steven Kritz at Brownstone dot org. In my last Brownstone article: The Rise of the Meme Disease, I cast the healthcare profession that I have devoted my life to in a very unfavorable light. However, before everyone writes off the healthcare industry as a total fraud, let me assure you that there are instances where medical advancements have been of great value. In fact, the reason I have outlived close members of my family by 20-30+ years is almost certainly due to treatments available to me that were not available to them. During the 1970s, when I attended medical school and did my residency training, engineering as a profession was absolutely dead. As a consequence, a large number of pre-engineering students switched to pre-med. For decades, I have believed that the era from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s saw the greatest technological advances in medicine ever seen before or since, largely due to the number of engineering students who went into medicine. Examples of advances that occurred during this era included the addition to our diagnostic armamentaria of CT, MRI, and radioisotope scanning, sonography, angiography, flexible scopes, and advanced blood testing. In addition, pharmaceutical product development took off, with one of the most important additions, in my opinion, being better treatments for hypertension. While my last Brownstone article focused on how some of these advances caused harm, I will now focus on some of the advances in the treatment of heart disease that improved patients' lives significantly. I will also include some of the important missteps and detours that occurred along the way. In addition, I will discuss the challenges that must be overcome, some of which risk jeopardizing the gains that have been made. I will do this from my perspective as both a healthcare professional and patient. Going into the 1970s, there were basically two classes of oral medications used to treat hypertension: diuretics and a chemical active in the central nervous system (brand name, Aldomet). They were somewhat effective in lowering blood pressure. However, there was no evidence that their use delayed the onset or reduced the severity of heart disease or other vascular conditions. Another class of oral antihypertensive medication, beta-blockers, first developed during the 1960s, saw increasing use during the 1970s. Beta-blockers were quickly followed by alpha-blockers, calcium channel blockers, ACE (angiotensin converting enzyme) inhibitors, ARBs (angiotensin receptor blockers), and other less frequently used medications. Concurrently, our ability to study the anatomy of coronary arteries using angiography, and the ability to actually intervene via coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and, beginning in the 1980s, angioplasty, provided us with the ability to delay the onset of heart disease (using antihypertensive medications), and mitigate the damage when it did occur (using CABG and angioplasty). While the availability of these additional classes of antihypertensive medications made it possible to reduce blood pressure in just about all patients, it took a number of years to obtain good data demonstrating which combination of classes yielded the best outcomes in terms of delayed or reduced incidence of heart disease or other vascular events, such as stroke. Overall, I believe that by the 1980s, we reached the point where the benefits of treatment had been optimized. Here's where my own personal story comes into play. I've had severe hypertension for more than 30 years, to the point where it requires 3 medications with 4 active ingredients for good control (diuretic, beta-blocker, alpha-blocker, and ARB). It took more than a year to come up with a regimen that controlled my blood pressure with minimal side effects, and I've remained on that regimen, unchanged, ever since. On the few occasions where I had to minimally reduce my medication dose for a specific procedure (such as a stress test), my blood pressure ...

    9 min

About

Daily readings from Brownstone Institute authors, contributors, and researchers on public health, philosophy, science, and economics.

You Might Also Like