gwyneth28
When I started nurse training 50 years ago (good grief 😳) I was told B.P. if the top number is 100 plus the age of the patient was good and the lower number had to be under 100, a lot has changed since then.
Interested to know what they said as to why they changed that - ie genuine research had shown they needed to or drug companies said they needed to?
Were people okay with their blood pressure at the old readings? etc
At 72 years old = 172 for my first reading would mean "Yep....my blood pressure is fine" - whereas they're telling me "Eeek at the sort of levels you're getting - you've gotta take Big Pharma's drugs or you're gonna have a heart attack". Cue for me telling them "I'm not that bothered about a heart attack - few minutes and I'll be gone...safely home in Heaven and breaking out the virtual champagne at my "Welcome Home" party. No big deal".
Having failed on that tack they then come out with "Ah....but ah....you might have a stroke instead".
It feels like they're threatening me with "summat or other" unless I help keep Big Pharma in business. Considering just what Big Pharma has been doing the last few years = "Well I didnt trust them anyway re my welfare and I know exactly how concerned they aren't with that since 2020".
One of my most recent medical conversations was "I'm not going to let you jab me with That Jab anyway - but, outa interest, if I was going to let you = which one would you use for me?" Yep.....got it in one....ie the one that I believe has since been stopped because of all the heart attacks it caused - and I make it plain to all medical people right from the start that I'm from a very heavy-duty heart attack family indeed. Astra-Zeneca - that's the one I'd probably have died from by now...and would have saved the State quite a bit on my pension money they have to pay me...because I'm still alive.