Makes You Wonder

Martha Gallagher <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday.
||
|| Here's the link:
|| http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/health/12case.html?
||
|| I think they do make you register, but nothing bad happens
|| except now the Northeast Liberal Media (is that redundant?)
|| Establishment(TM) knows whatever registration info you gave
|| them.
||
|| The short version of the story is the reporter has high
|| cholesterol (and has had it for "decades"😉; his doctor was
|| pushing him to go on statins, but he didn't really want to.
|| Anyway, he gets to try out this new whizbang machine that
|| actually images your heart/blood vessels, etc to see how much
|| sludge really is stuck to the old pipes.
||
|| Despite the "decades" of elevated high cholesterol, his were
|| worthy of Mary Poppins ("practically perfect"😉. So, what do
|| you think his cardiologist's reaction was? That he should
|| still go on the statins.
||
|| Yeah, because I mean obviously the high cholesterol is really
|| doing him a lot of harm there, right?
||
|| Does this make sense to anyone?*
||
|| Sometimes I really wonder.
||
|| Martha
||
||
|| *Well, it does make sense if you believe that 1. doctors have
|| become so obsessed w/CYA medicine that they'd rather
|| prescribe a drug that a patient obviously doesn't need rather
|| that face the risk that something might eventually happen to
|| the patient and then they'd be asked "why wasn't he on drug
|| X?" and/or 2. that they (same they) are so brainwashed by the
|| drug companies that they believe that "needs statins" follows
|| "has high cholesterol" as the night follows the day, even
|| when there's clear evidence to the contrary.
||

My father-in-law got a clean bill of health from his doctor
following
being tested with the imaging thing and he had always had low
Cholesterol. Two months later he was in the hospital for triple
by-pass because of 70 to 90% blockage. Makes one question the
reliability of all of that technology.

BJ

--
--
"The right to be heard does not automatically include the right
to be taken seriously." -- H. Hubert Humphrey

In article <[email hidden]>,

BJ in Texas said:

Martha Gallagher <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday.
||
|| Here's the link:
|| http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/health/12case.html?
||
|| I think they do make you register, but nothing bad happens
|| except now the Northeast Liberal Media (is that redundant?)
|| Establishment(TM) knows whatever registration info you gave
|| them.
||
|| The short version of the story is the reporter has high
|| cholesterol (and has had it for "decades"😉; his doctor was
|| pushing him to go on statins, but he didn't really want to.
|| Anyway, he gets to try out this new whizbang machine that
|| actually images your heart/blood vessels, etc to see how much
|| sludge really is stuck to the old pipes.
||
|| Despite the "decades" of elevated high cholesterol, his were
|| worthy of Mary Poppins ("practically perfect"😉. So, what do
|| you think his cardiologist's reaction was? That he should
|| still go on the statins.
||
|| Yeah, because I mean obviously the high cholesterol is really
|| doing him a lot of harm there, right?
||
|| Does this make sense to anyone?*
||
|| Sometimes I really wonder.
||
|| Martha
||
||
|| *Well, it does make sense if you believe that 1. doctors have
|| become so obsessed w/CYA medicine that they'd rather
|| prescribe a drug that a patient obviously doesn't need rather
|| that face the risk that something might eventually happen to
|| the patient and then they'd be asked "why wasn't he on drug
|| X?" and/or 2. that they (same they) are so brainwashed by the
|| drug companies that they believe that "needs statins" follows
|| "has high cholesterol" as the night follows the day, even
|| when there's clear evidence to the contrary.
||

My father-in-law got a clean bill of health from his doctor
following
being tested with the imaging thing and he had always had low
Cholesterol. Two months later he was in the hospital for triple
by-pass because of 70 to 90% blockage. Makes one question the
reliability of all of that technology.

BJ

--

Also makes you wonder if high cholesterol is really the culprit. ;-)

What were his triglycerides?
--
Om.

"My mother never saw the irony in calling me a son-of-a-[censored]." -Jack Nicholson

OmManiPadmeOmelet <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| In article <[email hidden]>,
|| "BJ in Texas" <[email hidden]> wrote:
||
||| Martha Gallagher <[email hidden]> wrote:
||||| Interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday.
|||||
||||| Here's the link:
||||| http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/health/12case.html?
|||||
||||| I think they do make you register, but nothing bad happens
||||| except now the Northeast Liberal Media (is that
redundant?)
||||| Establishment(TM) knows whatever registration info you
gave
||||| them.
|||||
||||| The short version of the story is the reporter has high
||||| cholesterol (and has had it for "decades"😉; his doctor was
||||| pushing him to go on statins, but he didn't really want
to.
||||| Anyway, he gets to try out this new whizbang machine that
||||| actually images your heart/blood vessels, etc to see how
||||| much
||||| sludge really is stuck to the old pipes.
|||||
||||| Despite the "decades" of elevated high cholesterol, his
||||| were
||||| worthy of Mary Poppins ("practically perfect"😉. So, what
do
||||| you think his cardiologist's reaction was? That he should
||||| still go on the statins.
|||||
||||| Yeah, because I mean obviously the high cholesterol is
||||| really
||||| doing him a lot of harm there, right?
|||||
||||| Does this make sense to anyone?*
|||||
||||| Sometimes I really wonder.
|||||
||||| Martha
|||||
|||||
||||| *Well, it does make sense if you believe that 1. doctors
||||| have
||||| become so obsessed w/CYA medicine that they'd rather
||||| prescribe a drug that a patient obviously doesn't need
||||| rather
||||| that face the risk that something might eventually happen
||||| to
||||| the patient and then they'd be asked "why wasn't he on
drug
||||| X?" and/or 2. that they (same they) are so brainwashed by
||||| the
||||| drug companies that they believe that "needs statins"
||||| follows "has high cholesterol" as the night follows the
||||| day, even
||||| when there's clear evidence to the contrary.
|||||
|||
||| My father-in-law got a clean bill of health from his doctor
||| following
||| being tested with the imaging thing and he had always had
low
||| Cholesterol. Two months later he was in the hospital for
||| triple
||| by-pass because of 70 to 90% blockage. Makes one question
the
||| reliability of all of that technology.
|||
||| BJ
|||
||| --
||
|| Also makes you wonder if high cholesterol is really the
|| culprit. ;-)
||
|| What were his triglycerides?

Not sure, but I have seen reports that indicate that Trans-Fats
may be a cause of blockage. Can't remember the cites right now,
but I could probably find them through google.

BJ

--
--
"Better to keep your mouth shut and be thought a fool than to
open it and remove all doubt." -- Mark Twain

Martha Gallagher said:

Interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday.

Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/health/12case.html?

I think they do make you register, but nothing bad happens except now the
Northeast Liberal Media (is that redundant?) Establishment(TM) knows
whatever registration info you gave them.

Yes.

Quoted message said:

The short version of the story is the reporter has high cholesterol (and
has had it for "decades"😉; his doctor was pushing him to go on statins,
but he didn't really want to. Anyway, he gets to try out this new whizbang
machine that actually images your heart/blood vessels, etc to see how much
sludge really is stuck to the old pipes.

Despite the "decades" of elevated high cholesterol, his were worthy of
Mary Poppins ("practically perfect"😉. So, what do you think his
cardiologist's reaction was? That he should still go on the statins.

Yeah, because I mean obviously the high cholesterol is really doing him a
lot of harm there, right?

Does this make sense to anyone?*
Sometimes I really wonder.

No, it doesn't make sense. Here's what is
happening in our hospital. Medicare has an
elective program that open-heart surgeons and
their hospitals can join (yeah sure, elective), as
an incentive to earn more of a reimbursement.
They have 10-15 areas that they watch and one of
those is if the patient was discharged on statins.
If we fall below a certain percentage who are
not discharged on statins, or in any of the areas
they are monitoring, we lose that extra
reimbursement.

Marsha/Ohio

On Thu, 14 Jul 2005 14:35:20 -0400, Martha Gallagher <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Interesting article in the NYTimes yesterday.

Here's the link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/12/health/12case.html?

I think they do make you register, but nothing bad happens except now the
Northeast Liberal Media (is that redundant?) Establishment(TM) knows
whatever registration info you gave them.

The short version of the story is the reporter has high cholesterol (and
has had it for "decades"😉; his doctor was pushing him to go on statins,
but he didn't really want to. Anyway, he gets to try out this new
whizbang
machine that actually images your heart/blood vessels, etc to see how
much
sludge really is stuck to the old pipes.

Despite the "decades" of elevated high cholesterol, his were worthy of
Mary Poppins ("practically perfect"😉. So, what do you think his
cardiologist's reaction was? That he should still go on the statins.

Yeah, because I mean obviously the high cholesterol is really doing him a
lot of harm there, right?

Does this make sense to anyone?*

Sometimes I really wonder.

Martha

*Well, it does make sense if you believe that 1. doctors have become so
obsessed w/CYA medicine that they'd rather prescribe a drug that a
patient
obviously doesn't need rather that face the risk that something might
eventually happen to the patient and then they'd be asked "why wasn't he
on drug X?" and/or 2. that they (same they) are so brainwashed by the
drug
companies that they believe that "needs statins" follows "has high
cholesterol" as the night follows the day, even when there's clear
evidence to the contrary.

I recommend reading "The Cholesterol Myths". First, having less sludge"
in your arteries does
not mean that you won't have heart disease. Second, cholesterol is only
very, very weakly related to the amount of deposits in your arteries.
--
Bob M
remove ".x" to reply