For what it's worth, I think Ray is on the right track. I cannot comment on the specifics, because I don't know enough about various BP medications and their interactions. He probably does from personal experience and self-education, plus he has no incentive to give bad information, but rather the opposite. Regardless, in principle, his over riding logic is certainly very correct, in my opinion.
It is unfortunate that doctors do not know enough about CoQ10 to properly factor it into treatment decisions. It is a vital but missing piece of the puzzle since it addresses the ROOT OF THE PROBLEM rather than just treating symptoms, which the drugs are intended to do. They are not supposed to know about CoQ10. They are not rewarded for knowing about it. (In fact, they could get in trouble for it by their regulators -- some other time on that issue though.
)
Pharmaceutical companies educated doctors. That is where they get their information. These companies have no incentive to educate doctors for "fixes" that do not provide for long term drug sales. Also, economically, they have no incentive for curing disease either. Think about it. It is the long-term treatment of symptoms with their products that they seek. And get. (Some would argue it is a violation of the law for drug companies to actually Cure diseases since their legal obligation is to their shareholders who would be financially damaged by the curing of diseases, but we'll stay away from that one too, if you don't mind.
)
However as one quick example: When the (simple and inexpensive) cure for the common stomach ulcer finally came out, drug companies took a financial beating. They cried.
I sympathize with others who still believe in our thoroughly profit driven healthcare system. It's tough to figure out. One poster recently commented that her doctor actually seemed relieved and "happy" for the first time when she finally laid down the law: "No more statins for me!" to paraphrase her. The poster indicated some surprise and confusion by his reaction. Not me. Made perfect sense. Why? Doctors, like all people, take the course of least resistance when they can -- if they can find it. She made the answer to his conflict-of-interest dilemma dirt simple, AND AT THE SAME TIME, the correct decision was now at hand for the patient -- which is something most humans, particularly doctors, want as well. A new "course of least resistance" for the doctor was established. (It removed all personal Cognitive Dissonance issues for him, but we'll stay away from that level of analysis for now too.
) He had duly pushed the "Party Line" for the drug companies to whom he is indebted and of whom he fears, and she simply declined. So he won. He "did his job" as instructed, but the right thing happened in spite of it: She refused.
So he was happy.
Biologist (and part time arm chair sociologist, psychologist & economist
)