You are seeing this message because your Web browser does not support basic Web standards. Find out more about why this message is appearing and what you can do to make your experience on this site better.


ABOUT ARCHIVES
Advanced Search

Welcome   | My Account | E-mail Alerts | Access Rights | Sign In


  Vol. 167 No. 6, March 26, 2007 TABLE OF CONTENTS
  Archives
  •  Online Features
  Editorial
 This Article
 •Full text
 •PDF
 •Send to a friend
 • Save in My Folder
 •Save to citation manager
 •Permissions
 Citing Articles
 •Citation map
 •Citing articles on HighWire
 •Citing articles on Web of Science (11)
 •Contact me when this article is cited
 Related Content
 •Similar articles in this journal
 Topic Collections
 •Neurology
 •Stroke
 •Alert me on articles by topic
 Social Bookmarking
  Add to CiteULike Add to Connotea Add to Del.icio.us Add to Digg Add to Reddit Add to Technorati Add to Twitter What's this?

Low Risk—and the "No More Than 50%" Myth/Dogma

Jeremiah Stamler, MD

Arch Intern Med. 2007;167(6):537-539.

Since this article does not have an abstract, we have provided the first 150 words of the full text and any section headings.

Medical myths/dogmas die hard. Researchers creating a new body of knowledge for prevention and control of the coronary heart disease–cardiovascular disease (CHD-CVD) epidemic had to disprove and displace the following successive myths/dogmas (among others):

  • In the early 1950s: severe atherosclerosis is part of normal aging, hence inevitable, and nothing can be done about it.1
  • Then: serum cholesterol level and blood pressure (BP) normally rise with age during adulthood.
  • Normal systolic BP is 100 mm Hg plus your age; normal serum cholesterol level is as much as 300 mg/dL (7.8 mmol/L). (Spare us normalcy!)
  • Most high BP is essential hypertension of unknown cause.
  • Treatment to lower high BP only gets at a symptom (not at the underlying disease) and can do harm by lowering the blood flow to the heart and brain, so therapeutic nihilism and judicious neglect are right.
  • Later: systolic BP of 140 to 159 and . . . [Full Text of this Article]


AUTHOR INFORMATION


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati   Add to Twitter Twitter     What's this?

THIS ARTICLE HAS BEEN CITED BY OTHER ARTICLES

The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MRFIT)--Importance Then and Now
Stamler and Neaton
JAMA 2008;300:1343-1345.
FULL TEXT  

What explains declining coronary mortality? Lessons and warnings
Capewell and O'Flaherty
Heart 2008;94:1105-1108.
FULL TEXT  

Is Phenomenology the Best Approach to Health Research?
Kuller
Am J Epidemiol 2007;166:1109-1115.
ABSTRACT | FULL TEXT  

Low Prevalence of Individuals With Optimal or Borderline Levels of Cardiovascular Risk Factors Extends to Rapidly Developing Countries
Bovet et al.
Arch Intern Med 2007;167:2262-2263.
FULL TEXT  





HOME | CURRENT ISSUE | PAST ISSUES | TOPIC COLLECTIONS | CME | SUBMIT | SUBSCRIBE | HELP
CONDITIONS OF USE | PRIVACY POLICY | CONTACT US | SITE MAP
 
© 2007 American Medical Association. All Rights Reserved.