DAILY ASPIRIN LINKED TO 'WET' AMD

Daily use of aspirin over the long term, as with coumadin, eventually causes the cell wall membrane to fail and bleeding is the end result, and it can be uncontrollable in a large number of cases. 


There are so many safe and effective natural supplements and remedies that will help with maintaining "thinned" blood it is puzzling why people subject themselves to these risks.

 "Regular aspirin users at higher risk of sight problems, research suggests" Martin Evans, The Telegraph, 10/3/11, telegraph.co. uk 

Study after study has shown that daily aspirin use increases the risk of intestinal bleeding and a potentially fatal haemorrhage. Also, a recent study showed some disturbing news for anyone who values their eyesight.

 Dutch researchers examined more than 4,000 elderly patients. Among these patients, 840 took a daily low-dose aspirin. When the researchers compared records, they found that those who used aspirin were TWO TIMES more likely to develop "wet" advanced macular degeneration (AMD) - the advanced form of the disease that sharply increases risk of blindness. 

This does not prove that aspirin promotes wet AMD... but there is a significant link and a very alarming risk that should be taken seriously.

Researchers continued to say that the heart health benefits of aspirin outweigh the AMD risks.

But in a 2005 New England Journal of Medicine study, some 20,000 middle-aged women took 100mg of aspirin daily for 10 years. Another group of nearly the same size took a placebo.

Results showed that aspirin provided no protection from heart attack, but did slightly reduce risk of ischemic stroke. 

Meanwhile, women in the aspirin group were found to have a 40% increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding severe enough to require transfusions!

Add to that wet AMD and this "wonder drug" may not be worth the risk. 

Finding Fibrillation

For years its been know that NSAIDS can cause quite an array of side effects from kidney failure to liver failure, even silent bleeding.


Now NSAIDS are linked to atrial fibrillation.  Fibrillation  is the rapid, irregular, and unsynchronized contraction of muscle fibers. An important occurrence is with regards to the heart (atrial or ventricular fibrillation).


A Fib can also be a symptom of thyroid imbalanced and this should not be overlooked.  Magnesium can help correct A Fib and low levels of the mineral are associated with exceesive of long term use of NSAIDS.


Ibuprofen and aspirin linked to irregular heart rhythm
Commonly used painkillers including ibuprofen increase the risk of developing an irregular heart rhythm by up to 40 per cent, according to a new study.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8615998/Ibuprofen-and-aspirin-linked-to-irregular-heart-rhythm.html

What is atrial fibrillation
Atrial fibrillation (AF or A-fib) is the most common cardiac arrhythmia (abnormal heart rhythm), and involves the two upper chambers (atria) of the heart. Its name comes from the fibrillating (i.e., quivering) of the heart muscles of the atria, instead of a coordinated contraction. It can often be identified by taking a pulse and observing that the heartbeats do not occur at regular intervals. However, a stronger indicator of AF is the absence of P waves on an electrocardiogram (ECG or EKG), which are normally present when there is a coordinated atrial contraction at the beginning of each heart beat. Risk increases with age, with 8% of people over 80 having AF.
In AF, the normal electrical impulses that are generated by the sinoatrial node are overwhelmed by disorganized electrical impulses that originate in the atria and pulmonary veins, leading to conduction of irregular impulses to the ventricles that generate the heartbeat. The result is an irregular heartbeat, which may occur in episodes lasting from minutes to weeks, or it could occur all the time for years. The natural tendency of AF is to become a chronic condition. Chronic AF leads to a small increase in the risk of death.
Atrial fibrillation is often asymptomatic and is not in itself generally life-threatening, but it may result in palpitations, fainting, chest pain, or congestive heart failure. People with AF usually have a significantly increased risk of stroke (up to 7 times that of the general population). Stroke risk increases during AF because blood may pool and form clots in the poorly contracting atria and especially in the left atrial appendage (LAA). The level of increased risk of stroke depends on the number of additional risk factors. If a person with AF has none, the risk of stroke is similar to that of the general population. However, many people with AF do have additional risk factors and AF is a leading cause of stroke.
Atrial fibrillation may be treated with medications which either slow the heart rate or revert the heart rhythm back to normal. Synchronized electrical cardioversion may also be used to convert AF to a normal heart rhythm. Surgical and catheter-based therapies may also be used to prevent recurrence of AF in certain individuals. People with AF are often given anticoagulants such as warfarin to protect them from stroke.

Heart disease, No. 1 killer, can sneak up on women

Aspirin is a risky pill to swallow

Salicylates and Pandemic Influenza Mortality

This report seems to follow the current concern over cytokine storm that leads to build up of fluid in the lungs and related symproms that may lead to severe consequences or death.

In addition to our recommendations for this flu season of vitamin C, vitamin D, garlic and specific other natural therapy, we suggesst Nettle because it is a very potent cytokine reducer (what the TNF drugs do) without suppressing your immune system.

The high case‐fatality rate—especially among young adults—during the 1918–1919 influenza pandemic is incompletely understood. Although late deaths showed bacterial pneumonia, early deaths exhibited extremely “wet,” sometimes hemorrhagic lungs. The hypothesis presented herein is that aspirin contributed to the incidence and severity of viral pathology, bacterial infection, and death, because physicians of the day were unaware that the regimens (8.0–31.2 g per day) produce levels associated with hyperventilation and pulmonary edema in 33% and 3% of recipients, respectively. Recently, pulmonary edema was found at autopsy in 46% of 26 salicylate‐intoxicated adults. Experimentally, salicylates increase lung fluid and protein levels and impair mucociliary clearance. In 1918, the US Surgeon General, the US Navy, and the Journal of the American Medical Association recommended use of aspirin just before the October death spike. If these recommendations were followed, and if pulmonary edema occurred in 3% of persons, a significant proportion of the deaths may be attributable to aspirin.
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/abs/10.1086/606060

Aspirin Misuse May Have Made 1918 Flu Pandemic Worse

ScienceDaily (2009-10-03) -- The devastation of the 1918-1919 influenza pandemic is well known, but a new article suggests a surprising factor in the high death toll: the misuse of aspirin. AThe article sounds a cautionary note as present day concerns about the novel H1N1 virus run high. ... > read full article

Routine aspirin benefit queried

The use of ASA in this context is a risk that should have been known to doctors who are required to study pharmacology and physiology.

Longterm use of ASA and even other blood thinning drugs like coumadin may cause destruction of the cell wall membrane leading to a type of free-radical destruction originating from the rupture of cellular lysosomal membranes. Lysosomes are digestive substances found in each cell. They are designed to digest and eliminate waste from the cell. When the membranes are ruptured prematurely, cell contents are digested and destroyed. Silent bleeding and death may ensue.

Omega 3, garlic, cayenne, willow bark, natto or other natural supplements may do as well or better, and without such a high risk of harm.

Routine aspirin benefits queried
Low-dose aspirin should not routinely be used to prevent heart attacks and strokes, contrary to official guidance, say UK researchers.

Analysis of data from over 100,000 clinical trial participants found the risk of harm largely cancelled out the benefits of taking the drug.

Only those who have already had a heart attack or stroke should be advised to take a daily aspirin, they found.

The Lancet study should help clarify a "confusing" issue, GPs said.

The NHS drugs watchdog, the National Institute for health and Clinical Excellence (NICE), has not made a ruling in this area.

But experts in the UK, US and Europe recommend aspirin for people who have not already had a heart attack or stroke, but are at high risk of cardiovascular disease because of factors such as age, blood pressure and cholesterol level.

“ We don't have good evidence that, for healthy people, the benefits of long-term aspirin exceed the risks by an appropriate margin ”
Professor Colin Baigent, study leader

This strategy, known as primary prevention, is based on the result of studies looking at predicted risks and benefits in this population.

But the latest research provides clearer evidence because it is based on data from individuals, the researchers said.

They looked at heart attacks and strokes and major bleeds - a potential side effect of aspirin - in six primary prevention trials, involving 95,000 people at low to average risk and 16 trials involving 17,000 people at high risk - because they had already had a heart attack or stroke.

Use of aspirin in the lower-risk group was found to reduce non-fatal heart attacks by around a fifth, with no difference in the risk of stroke or deaths from vascular causes.

But it also increased the risk of internal bleeding by around a third.

Balance

However, in those patients who had already had a heart attack or stroke and were at risk of having another, the benefits clearly outweighed the chance of adverse events, the researchers said.

Study leader Professor Colin Baigent from the Clinical Trial Service Unit at the University of Oxford, UK, said drug safety was vital when making recommendations that affected tens of millions of healthy people.

"We don't have good evidence that, for healthy people, the benefits of long-term aspirin exceed the risks by an appropriate margin."

He added: "I think the guideline groups will find it useful to have the data analysed in that way."

Professor Steve Field, chair of the Royal College of GPs, said the issue had been confusing for GPs and patients.

"There is no definitive guidance and it makes it bewildering when you have a series of papers which then hint it would be beneficial to take aspirin."

He added that many patients would buy aspirin over the counter - either on the advice of their GP or under their own steam - because it was cheap.

"This important study does suggest people shouldn't take aspirin unless indicated by disease."

Ellen Mason, senior cardiac nurse at the British Heart Foundation said: "It is better for doctors to weigh up the benefit and risk of prescribing aspirin on an individual basis, rather than develop a blanket guideline suggesting everyone at risk of heart disease is routinely given aspirin."

Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/health/8072215.stm
Published: 2009/05/28 23:11:43 GMT © BBC MMIX

Is there evidence for heart therapy in mainstream medicine?

Worth reading and worth drawing up a list of questions for your provider.

Note that while this article favors use of aspirin, the downside of long term ASA is an issue to question. ASA is something, even in low dose, that over time can cause the cell wall membrane of red blood cells to disintegrate. Natural therapy may include vitamin E, nattokinase, cayenne, garlic (see ALLI-C, right column), or the heart health promoting herb - hawthorne. (More information on these natural treatments may be found here.

Consider as well that there is a great deal of doubt about the veracity of "double blind studies". Most researchers do know that these studies can be manipulated quite easily to get a "desired" result.

A reader poses this query: "I'm intrigued by your comment that "...there is a great deal of doubt about the veracity of 'double blind studies.' Most researchers do know that these studies can be manipulated quite easily to get a 'desired' result.Would you please elaborate? How can these studies be manipulated to get a desired result? Can you provide some examples that are suspicious along those lines?"

The answer is Rosenthal Effect and it is displayed in the film "My Fair Lady". But then money and notoriety, along with the extreme pressure of "publish or perish" are other vectors to be considered.

The Vast Majority of Recommendations Given to Heart Patients Are NOT Supported by Good Science!

Study Questions Evidence Behind Heart Therapies
By Ron Winslow/ WSJ
FEBRUARY 24, 2009

Heart disease is among the most studied illnesses in all of medicine, yet just 11% of more than 2,700 recommendations approved by cardiologists for treating heart patients are supported by high-quality scientific testing, according to new research.

About half the medical recommendations for heart patients have limited scientific backing, according to a study published in Wednesday's Journal of the American Medical Association. Instead, they are based mostly on expert opinion -- subjective viewpoints where consensus is often lacking.

A daily aspirin for heart patients is supported by rigorous scientific research.
For instance, people who previously have had a heart attack and take an aspirin daily to help avert a second such incident can rest assured that the treatment is supported by rigorous scientific studies. But there is much less certainty around another common recommendation that patients treated with artery-opening stents remain on a potent blood thinner for a year to avoid a rare but potentially life-threatening blood clot. The downside: Patients who stay on blood thinners for an extended time risk potential complications if they need urgent surgery.

The findings from the JAMA study reflect the challenge doctors and patients face in choosing the best course of treatment for a variety of conditions. And they underscore that even though drug and device companies, government agencies and philanthropic groups have spent billions of dollars developing and testing new treatments in recent years, much of what happens in the doctor's office or the hospital operating suite might not be based on rigorous scientific evidence.

"In most situations that we encounter when we see patients, it isn't so clear what is the best thing to do," says Pierluigi Tricoci, a cardiologist at Duke University's Duke Clinical Research Institute and lead author of the study.

For more than two decades, health-policy experts, health insurers and employers have been beating the drum for evidence about what works and what doesn't in medicine in an effort to reduce wide variation in medical care, cut health-care costs and develop standards by which to measure the performance of doctors, hospitals and health plans.

This month, the Obama administration and Congress budgeted more than $1 billion of the economic stimulus package to fund research for comparing the effectiveness of different treatments in head-to-head studies aimed at providing evidence to clinicians and insurers on the best treatment strategies.

"We need those studies to make the kind of changes in health care that are being talked about -- being sure we get the best possible care for our patients in the most cost-effective manner," says Sidney Smith, a medical guidelines expert and cardiologist at University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill and senior author of the JAMA paper.

The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have been jointly issuing guidelines to doctors on care of cardiovascular patients for more than 20 years. Recommendations based on multiple randomized clinical trials, in which patients are randomly assigned a treatment, are considered having the highest level of evidence. A single randomized study or non-randomized studies comprise the second level, while recommendations backed by expert opinion or case studies are considered having the weakest evidence. Guidelines are also ranked by whether empirical evidence or general opinion supports that a treatment is useful and effective or not.

For instance, strong evidence of benefit based on several randomized controlled clinical studies is behind guidelines calling for use of aspirin, cholesterol medications called statins and other pills called beta blockers among heart patients to avoid a second heart attack. Similar rigor is behind recommendations that patients who arrive at the emergency room with a major heart attack get treated with an angioplasty balloon within 90 minutes.

Experts Disagree
But such examples are the exception. For a variety of other conditions, treatment recommendations rely largely on non-randomized studies or expert opinion. For instance, it's unclear at what point patients who suffer excess bleeding during a heart procedure should get a blood transfusion, Dr. Tricoci says. And debate rages among cardiologists over two new tools for assessing a patient's long-term risk of a heart attack. When does a blood test for a marker called C-reactive protein aid in making such a prediction? How about a scan to check for calcium buildup in a patient's arteries? Mounting evidence supports each test, but more data are needed to determine how they might best be used, Dr. Tricoci says.

Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist at Yale University School of Medicine, says doctors should disclose to patients the strength of the evidence behind the care they recommend. "Treatment decisions are often made very dogmatically even when the level of evidence isn't very strong," he says.

One reason for the lack of stronger evidence is that the large "megatrials" that have dominated cardiovascular research in the past decade were sponsored by drug and device companies. While those studies provide an important source of information, they are typically designed primarily to win approval for a treatment or to widen the market for a therapy already on the market, and not to guide treatment decisions, according to the JAMA study.

Limitations of Studies
Clinical studies also typically exclude patients with complicated illness, which can limit the ability of doctors to apply findings to many of their patients. For instance, many heart patients also suffer from kidney disease. But contrast agents typically given to patients undergoing a diagnostic X-ray called cardiac catheterization can be harmful to kidneys.

Dr. Tricoci says he and his colleagues also observed that guideline writers are picked for their expertise in the field -- but they are also often those who consult regularly with industry. Such possible conflict of interest raises the potential to introduce bias into the guidelines, undermining their credibility.

Copyright 2008 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved