During the past 20 years the number of subclasses of calcium channel blockers has increased from one to four. Three classes have only a single clinically approved compound: verapamil, diltiazem, and mibefradil. The fourth class, dihydropyridines, contains numerous compounds. All agents are effective in lowering blood pressure in short-term studies, and side effects that trouble the patient are infrequent. Long-term studies in hypertensive patients are limited. Short-acting agents such as nifedipine have been associated with an increased cardiovascular risk in some, but not all studies. These agents also probably create a compliance problem for hypertensive patients because of the need for multiple daily doses and their unpleasant side effects, e.g., ankle edema, palpitations, and flushing. Therefore, they are not useful or indicated for the treatment of hypertensive patients. No data have suggested that long-acting dihydropyridines or nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers share the same fate. Indeed, several lines of evidence suggest the opposite: they have a cardioprotective effect. However, definitive information will require the completion of several long-term trials, including ALLHAT, CONVINCE, HOT, INSIGHT and NORDIL. Finally, it is important to reflect on the lessons learned from the controversy associated with the potential risks of calcium channel blockers. First, disagreements are common when one uses case-controlled studies and are reflective of the poor precision of the methods used. What is statistically relevant in one study may not hold true for another and may have no clinical relevance, particularly if the relative risk is less than 2. Investigators need to temper their enthusiasm to reflect this reality. Second, at the cutting edge of science there is probably relatively little agreement about what is correct among equally competent scientists. All have bias in their positions and should both recognize and admit so to themselves and their colleagues. Inferring that those who disagree have an unstated secondary agenda that will bring personal financial rewards or government accolades is inappropriate and counterproductive. Third, the randomized clinical trial, despite all its imperfections, is still the best tool to establish common ground on controversial issues. Finally, what may seem best from the public health perspective may not be in the best interest of the individual patient--a possibility that physicians have to constantly consider. For example, no public health benefit occurs if patients remain hypertensive because they fail to take their medications, no matter what the medication.