TMJ 'dysfunction' - Health implications

Some more conversations:
Patient: Doctor, is there anything else that can stop my fast heart rate and the atrial fibrillations?
Cardiologist: It is not a problem. We may have to do a procedure called heart catheter ablation, which will stop the fibrillations.
Patient: Would coming off the beta-blocker help? I never had this problem before I took the beta-blocker.
Cardiologist: Oh no, the drug has nothing to do with it. Your heart is just too sensitive and needs the ablation procedure! Also, after the ablation, you can be taken off the drug!

Comment: Heart catheter ablation is a procedure used to remove or terminate a "faulty electrical pathway" (as per the cardiologists) from sections of the hearts of those who repeatedly develop cardiac arrhythmias such as atrial fibrillation, atrial flutter, supraventricular tachycardias (SVT). (The cause may be entirely the use of beta-blockers, which the patient is never warned about).

Repeated atrial arrhythmias increase the risk of ventricular fibrillation and sudden cardiac arrest, and the patient tragically loses his or her life.

To illustrate the point about beta-blockers and the ablation procedure, I have a patient who is back in the hospital after his internally implanted defibrillator (ICD) shocked him again, for the umpteenth time, to stop his latest episode of a racing heart which had developed into atrial fibrillation. He had just come out of the hospital two days earlier after his ICD had shocked him twice the previous week. He had been put through the rigmarole of taking all the routine blood tests, ECG's, ultrasounds, echocardiography, and chest x-rays, interrogations of his ICD repeatedly, but they had not found the cause of the fibrillation.

The beta-blocker - Bisoprolol, had never been suspected and consequently, he has not been taken off it. He was discharged again from the hospital with no alteration of his drug regimen. He previously had two ablation procedures, which are supposed to prevent the heart from fibrillating. When the first procedure was undertaken, he had been promised that "within a few weeks of the ablation procedure, he will be off most of his medication" - including the beta-blocker.

Well, they did not take him off the beta-blocker following the ablation procedures. The ICD continued to give his heart an electrical shock regularly to stop the recurrent atrial fibrillations. He was repeatedly hospitalised. All the usual tests were undertaken each time, which were normal.

In the USA, such hospitalisations can set a patient back some $25,000 to + $40,000 for just one night's stay in the hospital. He was kept in hospital in the UK for many days at a time. Just try and imagine the cost to the NHS when this drama is played out thousands of times around the country daily.

He was hospitalised again, with his ICD continuing to fire. He was then told that he needed a newer, more specific beta blocker. He was taken off Bisoprolol and prescribed Nebivolol - a "newer" beta-blocker. His symptoms worsened considerably, and he was then informed that Nebivolol is not working for him, and he needs a third ablation and then they "will be able to take him off most of his drugs"! After a day or so, they changed their mind about carrying out the third ablation and put him back on Bisoprolol.

Nebivolol is primarily indicated for high blood pressure control. It is claimed that it is cardio selective as opposed to other beta-blockers which are not. Numerous claims of Nebivolol superiority are made in the literature, but at doses above 10 mg, nebivolol loses its cardio selectivity and blocks both β1 and β2 receptors. (While the recommended starting dose of nebivolol is 5 mg, a dose of 2.5 mg caused this patient serious problems. Sufficient control of blood pressure may require doses up to 40 mg). So, it is a pretty useless and dangerous addition considering the adverse reactions. I reckon a dose of 40 mg to "control blood pressure" would be rapidly fatal.

Treating the heart rate to control blood pressure is the height of absurdity. Damping this response instead of purely controlling the blood pressure and oxygen saturation is simply wrong. The medical profession needs to be seriously challenged on this issue.

It has now come to my attention that the primary cause of high blood pressure is the LACK of sufficient salt in our diet. Please read this article to update your knowledge.

These are actual records of a patient. The patient reports that he felt a surge during this period. The HR has, however, only marginally risen. During this hypertensive crisis, the BP rose from 155/93 to 214/124, i.e. a rise of 59/31 points over 2 hours and 17 minutes. The HR had risen by only 19 points from 55 bpm to 77 bpm, and is in no way indicative of palpitations or tachycardia. It does not appear to be causing the rising blood pressure, as per the common belief among the cardiology community. THE BLOOD PRESSURE RISES FIRST. THE HEART DOES NOT APPEAR TO CAUSE THE RAISED BLOOD PRESSURE.
[I now feel that the lack of salt is the main driving factor, and the heart is no need of these deceptive and dangerous medications.]

From my observations, the blood pressure appears to act quite independent of the heart rate. I suspect that it probably causes a slight fall in the ability of the lungs to concentrate the oxygen, causing the oxygen saturation to fall. This is akin to the bronchospasm caused by beta-blockers. The heart responds correctly by increasing the heart rate. If, however, the patients' BP is not treated soon after the onset of a High BP crisis, the heart does get sensitised because of the lowered oxygen concentration and may become tachycardic and may even go into fibrillation.

Unfortunately, most patients present with palpitations, tachycardia or atrial fibrillation long after the onset of high BP symptoms. The cardiologists assume that the high heart rate is causing the rise in blood pressure and start treating the heart to suppress it with unpredictable drugs. This leads to repeated hospital visits and often dire outcomes for the patient.

In my opinion, the treatment should address the high blood pressure first. Measures should be in place to actively restore the oxygen concentration in the blood - not an outright assault on the heart with drugs which grossly interfere with the natural homeostasis of the cardiovascular system. The first response should be to administer Glyceryl trinitrate which almost immediately lowers the blood pressure. This has raised a few eyebrows. The answer is in the question about what is GTN used for and how does it accomplish it? The heart soon follows by a reduction in beats per minute and a relief in any pain. An infusion of Magnesium also rolls back the high blood pressure rapidly. The heart rate rapidly falls and requires no further assault with drugs.

This patient was also a lifelong smoker and had episodes of chronic lung infection and pneumonia. Any lung disease is a contraindication for beta-blocker use because of their inherent ability to cause bronchospasm, reducing the oxygen saturation in the blood which is the actual trigger of a racing heart rate. He had been prescribed beta blockers despite any such warning. This, I found to be universal with lung conditions ignored.

Getting shocked by an internally implanted defibrillator is a terrifying ordeal. Not having the implanted defibrillating device, in the presence of the unpredictable drugs, would mean instant death for many patients through either bradycardia when the heart rate falls well below what is required to sustain life OR increases unpredictably, to cause atrial fibrillations, blood clot formation, pulmonary embolism, stroke, and death. This means that anyone prescribed these medications should also have an implanted defibrillator to protect them from complications and an untimely death. If they cannot be fitted with such a device, they should not be prescribed these drugs!

Ironically, coming off the beta-blocker is what stops the fibrillation - not the ablation procedure! I wonder what the outcome of an investigation into all heart ablation procedures and their correlation to beta-blocker or other heart drugs use would be. The highly influential academic cardiologist Sanjay Kaul said that he wouldn’t be surprised if AF ablation turned out to be no better than a sham procedure. He is not likely to say that it IS a sham procedure, as it could lead to serious litigation against thousands of his colleagues.

Medscape, in an article on ablation titled Could Ablation for AF be an Elaborate Placebo? goes on to say:
"Not only are the results of surgery poor, but the procedure is big—ablation lesions in the left atrium, often millimetres away from the oesophagus or phrenic nerve, general anaesthesia, trans-septal puncture, multiple vascular entries, and hours of bed rest put patients at significant risk. Creating a scar to treat a disease, that is often caused by a scar, hardly seems elegant."

Quoting another conversation:
Patient: Doctor, why are my legs freezing all the time ever since I started these beta-blockers? They cramp up all the time. I cannot get a decent night's sleep.
Cardiologist: Do you or did you ever smoke?
Patient: Yes, some 7 years ago.
Cardiologist: Well, we shall have to refer you to the vascular surgeons. You may have to have leg amputations because smoking severely damages the blood vessels in the legs and hence the cramps.

The cardiologist then walks away, leaving the patient in a bewildered state. It has not occurred to the cardiologist that the beta-blockers are a cause of a great deal of cramping in the patients' legs, and that he should consider stopping the b beta-blocker and see if his legs improve. (As a matter of record, the patients' legs are still intact 15 years on with absolutely no problem.)

Comment: The drugs are a miniscule amount of income for big pharma. The real money is generated by private hospitals where these treatments are undertaken. Can you imagine the cost of hospitalisations, ECG's, the blood tests, the radiographs, the ultrasounds, the MRI's and CT scans, the ICD's and defibrillators implanted, regular reviews of the ICD's, hormone level checks, catheter ablations, the numerous visits because of atrial fibrillations perpetuated by beta-blockers, the leg amputations, artificial legs, rehabilitation costs, the emergency ambulance transfers to the hospital etc? On top of all these expenses, are the fees of numerous "expert cardiologists" who can easily charge $1,800.00 in the USA for just showing their face. One could easily see some five different cardiologists, all cashing in, during a very short stay in the hospital.

The other losses suffered by patients are immeasurable. They get robbed of their quality of life. Their earning potential and their self-confidence plummets. They cannot buy holiday insurance or pay a steep premium to obtain the insurance. They lose their driving licence. They often lose their houses in the USA. (The most recent development in this respect is that the hospital bills are immediately attached to the patients' house in some states in the USA). Many must be supported by social benefits or other members of family, hence the cost to society is out of control.

I have only spoken about two adverse effects. There are countless other serious adverse effects caused by β-blockers.
These include: nausea, diarrhoea, bronchospasm (is the most serious), dyspnoea, pulmonary oedema, cold extremities, exacerbation of Reynaud's syndrome, hip damage, blockage of leg arteries, bradycardia, hypotension, heart failure, heart block, intestinal gangrene (I know a patient who died with this adverse event), overwhelming fatigue, extreme and debilitating dizziness, alopecia (hair loss), abnormal vision, extreme back pain, extreme itchiness, hallucinations, insomnia, nightmares, sexual dysfunction, impotence, erectile dysfunction and/or alteration of glucose and lipid metabolism, increase in mortality rate if given to diabetics - and many more.

The heart surgeon/cardiologist controversy over heart drugs:
Heart surgeons and Interventional cardiologists (who specialise in placing stents) do a remarkable job in unblocking arteries, miraculously saving lives. Death rates from acute coronary artery blockages have been greatly reduced - patients having a heart attack nowadays can expect to survive for many years, provided they can get to a proper treatment centre in time. We cannot thank them enough for their dedication and expertise.

Based on the patient's demographics, overall health, and surgical results, a surgeon should be able to predict approximate survival rates after surgery or coronary angioplasty. A successful quadruple bypass in a relatively healthy patient can be expected to extend their life by 20 years or more.

However, I speculated that many such surgeons must be dismayed to hear when a patient did not live the expected time and died prematurely, quite against their expectations.

I heard of this dismay expressed by cardiac surgeons from several cardiac nurses who operate with them. These nurses, who are perhaps unencumbered by both loyalty to and reliance upon their referral sources, seemed to be more forthcoming than doctors might be on such controversial or unpopular sentiments on this subject.

They confirmed my suspicions, informing me that, very often, the surgeons are aghast that sometimes their patient was dead in a month or two. There is considerable acrimony between cardiologists and heart surgeons over patient medications. They often do not see eye to eye - the surgeons felt that the usefulness of medications was overrated, while side effects and mortality/morbidity were under-reported.

The reason behind this is that the system is rigged against the patient. Patients who have any heart problem or high blood pressure are recruited into medication by their GPs and cardiologists. The heart surgeons only carry out the physical procedure and hand the patient back to the cardiologist. They have little say in the medications prescribed, to the peril of the patient and the dismay of the heart surgeon.

For this reason, the system needs changing, and I feel that the surgeons do the prescribing as well. I am sure they will be very reluctant to use drugs which could ruin their wonderful work and bring the demise of the patient far earlier than they expected after often gruelling surgical procedures sometimes lasting 14 hours!

It is essential to have a system for tracing back or rather an audit trail to see which GP or cardiologist over-prescribing is resulting in massive loads on the emergency hospital services through adverse effects, and they should be brought to book. To avoid the perpetuation of heart disease and the essential protection of patients, GPs must also be banished from prescribing any drugs which affect the heart.

A word of caution: Please do not come off your beta-blocker without the proper supervision of your medical doctor and without getting complete control of your high blood pressure. This means radically improving your diet, putting into effect a regular exercise regime, and using other means of lowering your blood pressure. Suddenly coming off the beta-blocker can cause life-threatening and unpredictable complications. Also, keep these drugs well away from any other person. Just a quarter of a 5 mg tablet can dangerously lower or increase the heart rate to bring about a life-threatening arrhythmia, and may prove fatal in a young child.

In a further development, Dr Mercola writes:
"American Heart Association President Suffers Heart Attack at 52"

"Many AHA Recommendations Worsen Heart Health
"Likely, Warner followed AHA recommendations, many of which are recipes for heart disease disaster. Of the foods scientifically proven to cause heart disease and clogged arteries, excess sugar and industrially processed omega-6 vegetable oils, found in nearly all processed foods, compete for space at the top of the list. And what kinds of foods does the AHA recommend protecting your heart?

Not only does it support ample grain consumption, but it also recommends eating harmful fats such as canola, corn, soybean and sunflower oil. “Blends or combinations of these oils often sold under the name ‘vegetable oil,’ and cooking sprays made from these oils are also good choices,” the AHA says. Meanwhile, the association still insists saturated fats are to be avoided.

Just this past summer, the AHA shocked health experts around the world by sending out a worldwide advisory saying saturated fats such as butter and coconut oil should be avoided to cut your risk of heart disease, and that replacing these fats with margarine and vegetable oil might cut your heart disease risk by as much as 30 per cent. Overall, the AHA recommends limiting your daily saturated fat intake to 6 percent of daily calories or less.

This is as backward as it gets, and if Warner was following this long-outdated advice, it’s no wonder he suffered a heart attack. In fact, it is to be expected. As noted by American science writer Gary Taubes, in his extensive rebuttal to the AHA’s advisory, with this document, the AHA reveals its longstanding prejudice — and the method by which it reaches its flawed conclusions.

In short, the AHA simply excluded all contrary evidence. After this methodical cherry-picking, they were left with just four clinical trials published in the 1960s and early ‘70s — the eras when the low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold. The problem is: Nutritional science has made significant strides since then, and some substantial studies have firmly disproven the hypothesis that saturated fat causes heart disease, finding no association whatsoever."

The misinformation continues unabated. Dr Mercola writes another article headed:
Who's Behind the Claim That Coconut Oil Is Pure Poison? (September 2018):
"A German lecture in which Harvard professor Karen Michel proclaims coconut oil is “pure poison” has been picked up by many English-speaking media outlets.
"Michel is a proponent of the American Heart Association’s (AHA) advisory against saturated fats such as coconut oil. She also has professional ties to Harvard professor Frank Sacks, who was the lead author of the AHA’s 2017 advisory on saturated fats. The AHA’s Presidential Advisory against saturated fats specifically identifies coconut oil as a harmful fat, even though coconut oil was not included in any of the studies AHA used to support its claims. The low-fat myth was born and grew to take hold in the 1960s and early ‘70s, and it is four studies from these eras that the AHA uses as the justification for their recommendation to avoid saturated fats. Coconut oil supports thyroid function, normalises insulin and leptin sensitivity, boosts metabolism and provides excellent and readily available fuel for your body in lieu of carbohydrates "

A medical doctor after reading this article:
"Sharp but true!"

A very senior hospital nurse writes:
"Terrifying. Every time they start my father on these, he lasts about three days, and we have to stop them”!!!

A senior figure in cardiology, in the NHS, writes:
"Well-written piece and supports what some people think happens in practice. It always amazes me how many patients on multiple medications end up in A&E on numerous occasions in the last few years of life, and it is rare a doctor has the confidence to stop the medications and their known side effects to see if it benefits the patient. It’s a shame a research project can't look into this, and we could see the outcome."

A paramedic working for the ambulance service:
"I fully concur with you. One patient I recently picked up with tachycardia was on 23 different medications for his high blood pressure and high heart rate!"

Comment: I did not include further very incriminating comments from this source.

An article in the New Scientist explains what went on during the 1960s.
"Maurice Papworth was a “pestilential nuisance”, according to his obituary. It was meant as a compliment. A whistle-blower before the modern meaning of the term was invented, he exposed how many of his fellow doctors in the 1960s, often at British teaching hospitals, were treating their patients with as much respect as lab rats, and sometimes killing them in the process.

In his explosive 1967 book, Human Guinea Pigs, he revealed how unsuspecting patients were “subjected to mental and physical distress which is in no way necessitated by and has no connection with, the treatment of their disease”. They were being sacrificed to science by “wolves in white coats”, said one reviewer of his book.

I wonder if many aspects of present-day medicine are any different!

A patient writes:
"I read your article on hypertension etc. and was appalled. Coincidentally, I was talking to a chap today, whose 55-year-old father was as fit as a fiddle until he was given steroids for a knee problem. He immediately put on 5 1/2 stone, got diabetes and high blood pressure. The tablets that they gave him for his blood pressure brought it down to 85/35, so he passed out at home and is now in hospital with a collapsed lung! As you can imagine, my friend is furious."

A very senior cardiologist from a top cardiac hospital writes:
Sent: Tuesday, April 24, 2018 15:50
To: amir@dramir.com
Hi Dr Amir,
I am beginning to believe you may be on to something!
Please read this article
"The cardiovascular event rate was significantly higher in patients on β-blockers than in those not on β-blockers.
In patients with coronary heart disease or heart failure, the cumulative event rate for cardiovascular events was also significantly higher in those on β-blockers than in those not on β-blockers.
The incidence of severe hypoglycaemia was significantly higher in patients on β-blockers than in those not on β-blockers,"

In further correspondence, the cardiologist concurs:
"Please see the attached paper to see how bad things are re polypharmacy, it's no fun getting old in the UK, especially if you rattle with tablets!"
Please read more here:65+ medication

Further reading:
• Got Magnesium? Those with Heart Disease Should take supplementation.
"Half of the patients in the study took a supplement containing 365 mg of magnesium twice a day for six months. The other half took a placebo. Merz tells WebMD that at the end of the study, the patients who took magnesium had better blood vessel function and their hearts showed less stress during treadmill exercise compared to the placebo group. Nearly three-quarters of the patients were magnesium-deficient at the beginning of the study, but their levels rose to nearly normal by the end. "

• Blood pressure drugs causing skin cancer Common blood pressure drug raises skin cancer risk.
"A new study, led by Danish-based researchers, shows that one of the most popular drugs used worldwide in the treatment of hypertension raises the risk of skin cancer by seven times."

• Blood pressure increased by blood pressure reducing drugs Blood pressure increased by BP drugs
"Commonly prescribed drugs used to lower blood pressure can actually have the opposite effect -- raising blood pressure in a statistically significant percentage of patients. A new study suggests that doctors could avoid this problem -- and select drugs most suitable for their patients -- by measuring blood levels of the enzyme renin through a blood test that is becoming more widely available.

• Blood pressure medications can lead to increased risk of stroke.Please click this link
"Howard says the risk of stroke went up 33 percent with each blood pressure medicine required to treat blood pressure to goal. Compared to people with systolic blood pressure below 120 mmHg without treatment, hypertensive individuals on three or more blood pressure medications had a stroke risk of 2.5 times higher."

• Two more blood pressure drugs recalled for cancer riskpotential cancer risk
"In August, the FDA announced an expanded recall of valsartan because products may contain an impurity. Last month, two more recalls were announced: one for the drug irbesartan and a second recall for losartan potassium hydrochlorothiazide tablets."

• FDA urged to ban a blood pressure medication with troubling side effects.
"A consumer advocacy group is asking the Food and Drug Administration to ban the sale of a widely prescribed blood pressure medication — as well as several generic versions — over concerns the drug can cause a gastrointestinal disorder that leads to severe and chronic diarrhoea, vomiting, abdominal pain, and weight loss."

• Are Blood Pressure Drugs Worth the falls? Click here?
"They followed those 5,000 older people (average age: 80) with hypertension for up to three years, and the results of their study are disturbing: The risk of serious fall injuries — fractured bones, brain injuries or dislocated joints — was significantly higher among those who took antihypertensives than among those who didn’t.

Over the three-year follow-up, 9 percent of the subjects were badly hurt by falls, which can have a devastating effect. “The outcomes are just as serious as the strokes and heart attacks for which we give these medications,” Dr Tinetti told me in an interview. “Serious fall injuries are as likely to lead to death or lasting functional disability.”

• BP medication causing fatigue BP medication causing fatigue
"How they can cause fatigue: Blood-pressure medications may slow down the pumping action of the heart as well as depress the entire central nervous system, or, in the case of diuretics, deplete electrolytes that the body needs."

©2017 -2024 Dr M. Amir. All rights reserved.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------NOTICE-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This article is written under the Human Rights Act 1998: UK Public General Acts 1998 c. 42 SCHEDULE 1 PART I Article 10 for of the long-suffering British public.
The law specifically states that "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority".
Any harassment, direct or indirect, by the ruling bodies or their cronies, will be vehemently pursued through this act and the freedom of expression laws.
Any breaches of the Data Protection Act shall also be brought to the attention of the Information Commissioner's Office and The Law Society.
.................................................................................................................................................................................................
PS: Taking a stand against the existing paradigm of dental and medical care is very costly. My website has highlighted the practices of those who knowingly or unknowingly perpetuate illness. This is not acceptable to the power structure controlling our health. To continue to produce evidentiary articles on my website and this forum - which have enlightened thousands of health practitioners and patients all around the world, to keep my staff employed and my offices viable, we request a little help. If you feel that this article has made an astonishing change in your symptoms, please donate through a window that comes up after a few seconds at dramir.com.

CONDITIONS OF USE AND IMPORTANT INFORMATION: This article is for educational purposes only. The improvement or benefits identified in this article or on this site are based on individual experiences which are dependent upon the patient’s unique health condition, medical history, and other individualised factors, and should not be considered representative of all treatment outcomes. You must do your due diligence by consulting your physician before embarking on what may be suggested here. This information is meant to supplement, not replace advice from your doctor or healthcare provider, and is not meant to cover all possible uses, precautions, interactions or adverse effects. This information may not fit your specific health circumstances. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on this forum. You should always speak with your doctor or health care professional before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your health care plan or treatment and to determine what course of therapy is right for you.