...............
I was wondering if anyone else has made a similar decision
Yes. But... after 6 months my cholesterol spiked...so I went back to the meds.
...............
I was wondering if anyone else has made a similar decision
If you can't take statins, or need to supplement statins, consider taking NEXLETOL (bempedoic acid) ...
One should know the NNT for a person like yourself before taking any drug that has a significant risk profile. For an X year old M with no history of heart disease, you'd need to treat Y people to avoid one cardiac event. You can get more specific than age, gender, and cardiac history. If you get an NNT from the doctor, ask which study, and make sure the population was like you.
+1A very good point. For an more detailed explanation, this is a good source:
https://www.thennt.com
the history of medicine is littered with practices and treatments that 'made sense' at the time but led to much suffering and death in retrospect. Why all medical learners should have to take a 'History of Medicine' course and be constantly fed servings of humble pie.
I would posit that this is more a history of trying to gain advantage/value from others complaints. Medicine has achieved some very impressive successes, unfortunately it has also had some pretty embarrassing setbacks. Thus the attempt to move towards more 'Evidence-Based' practices, with varying degrees of success due to the many forces that resist this move. Bear in mind as well that many, many medicines are derived from plants, fungi and bacteria. I would also add that most people are not aware of how recent a phenomenon 'modern medicine' is.A short history of medicine.
"I have an earache"
2000 BC Here, eat this root.
1000 AD That root is heathen. Here, say this prayer.
1850 AD That prayer is superstition. Here, drink this potion.
1940 AD That potion is snake oil. Here, swallow this pill.
1980 AD That pill is ineffective. Here, take this antibiotic.
2000 AD That antibiotic is artificial. Here, eat this root.
" A study from Kim KP, et al. has found significant variability in the radiation doses delivered at different sites performing CAC scoring with radiation doses ranging from 1 to even as high as 8–10 mSv [2]. Thus, the benefits of coronary artery calcium quantification should be weighted against the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation [1]. --ARRGH! 1mSv, great, 8, not so great.Really - equivalent to a mammogram? I find that surprising.
I would posit that this is more a history of trying to gain advantage/value from others complaints.
Oh yes I totally got that it was a joke. It has been posted before. I would still say it is a good commentary on the 'medicine as a business' model.No, it was a joke.
" A study from Kim KP, et al. has found significant variability in the radiation doses delivered at different sites performing CAC scoring with radiation doses ranging from 1 to even as high as 8–10 mSv [2]. Thus, the benefits of coronary artery calcium quantification should be weighted against the risks of exposure to ionizing radiation [1]. --ARRGH! 1mSv, great, 8, not so great.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12410-016-9373-1
I have never heard any doctor say this and the only thing comparable would perhaps be a single chest X-ray but even that would be almost a weeks worth. By my reckoning, the Calcium score would be about 2 months' worth of exposure. A CT would be about a year's worth.
Dental X-rays are very low dose. A panoramic dental X-ray is about 40 times less than a mammogram or 400 times less than a GI series and about a 1000 times less than a coronary CT. So very low but I'd still be wearing the collar to protect my thyroid. The problem is that it only takes one stray, albeit well placed, X-ray.Just heard this today at my new dentist with digital x-rays! The tech said the lead apron was technically not required but they used it anyway to make patients more comfortable since that's what they are used to. This dentist is doing my implant and I am switching to him as my primary dentist.
Does anyone know if it is true the dose from the latest digital dental x-rays don't require the patient to use the lead apron? This dentist has the latest equipment (including 3D imaging which was awesome for my implant) but it's not all about the tech with him. He is young (and GQ handsome) but very personable and shows great respect for his young techs who are smart as whips.
Dental X-rays are very low dose. A panoramic dental X-ray is about 40 times less than a mammogram or 400 times less than a GI series and about a 1000 times less than a coronary CT. So very low but I'd still be wearing the collar to protect my thyroid. The problem is that it only takes one stray, albeit well placed, X-ray.
Wouldn't one want the vaccine either way - what would the rationale be for getting the antibody test. If you grew up in a temperate climate the chance that you haven't had VZ is very low. If you haven't had VZ you definitely want the vaccine so you don't get an initial infection now. If you have had VZ you are still at risk of shingles which is nasty.My doctor talked to me about a shingles vaccine and all the bad things that could happen if I got the shingles. I don't ever recall having chicken pox and requested a blood test for the varicella zoster virus before committing to a vaccine. I'm still waiting for those results.
Wouldn't one want the vaccine either way - what would the rationale be for getting the antibody test. If you grew up in a temperate climate the chance that you haven't had VZ is very low. If you haven't had VZ you definitely want the vaccine so you don't get an initial infection now. If you have had VZ you are still at risk of shingles which is nasty.
You can get CIMT, where they measure the thickness of the intima-media. The plus side: no radiation, earlier to show disease (thickens before it calcifies), the minus side: really depends on the skill of the tech doing the scan. The machines are getting less dependent on the "operator variable".Yes, I had the collar on. I always insist on it. Thanks for the comparisons. I can better picture the dose DH was exposed to for the coronary CT...and why they should only be done sparingly.
My rationale is why take a vaccine for something that I never had?
That's what I used to think. Never had chicken pox, nor did any of my childhood friends, AFAIK.
Then I got shingles. Agony.
My doc told me it wasn't at all uncommon to have chicken pox with absolutely no symptoms, so he wasn't surprised at all.
Since that experience I've been a strong vaccine advocate for everyone.
Actually, here the director of the National Cardiac Institute privately agrees with me that statins are only good for pharmaceutical companies.
Just heard this today at my new dentist with digital x-rays! The tech said the lead apron was technically not required but they used it anyway to make patients more comfortable since that's what they are used to. This dentist is doing my implant and I am switching to him as my primary dentist.
Does anyone know if it is true the dose from the latest digital dental x-rays don't require the patient to use the lead apron? This dentist has the latest equipment (including 3D imaging which was awesome for my implant) but it's not all about the tech with him. He is young (and GQ handsome) but very personable and shows great respect for his young techs who are smart as whips.
Perhaps if you translated it to Romanian first, that would help.BTW, Google fails to find a "National Cardiac Institute."
Statements like this confuse me. Why would pharmaceutical companies push drugs that are cheap and generic? Without insurance, my annual cost to be on a statin (Atorvastatin) is about $24/yr.
Now my blood thinner, that's another story. Without insurance, I'd pay over $5k per year for Xarelto. Seems like that's where the push would be.......
BTW, Google fails to find a "National Cardiac Institute."
Perhaps if you translated it to Romanian first, that would help.