Re: Heart scans
- From: Port@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 23 Dec 2006 00:25:38 -0600
Joe Doe wrote:
it is just that current technology is not where
you want it to be (i.e. low risk, non-invasive, high specificity,
high-sensitivity diagnostic that quantitatively can measure CAD
I think I'm coming to that realization. For some reason, I've been
under the impression that western medicine has made more advances than
it actually has.
What specific therapies are you aware of that promise either physical
demonstration of plaque regression or clinical evidence of protection
from adverse events that you are not applying or could apply at will?
All sorts of things. Take diets for instance. There seems to be no
consensus among experts on what's good and what's not. And who am I to
decide which expert is right/wrong? They all can point to a study to
prove their opinions. Same thing with vitamins and supplements. Same
thing with drugs. About all a layman can do is take it ALL in and make
the best decisions he knows how, based on.... I'm not sure what. Which
brings me back to the reason I'd like to measure my progress or lack
thereof.
Right now I have an appointment for more angioplasty and more stents
(found a new doctor whom I'd hoped would have a better idea than
that). But frankly, I'm seriously considering canceling. Personally, I
think I can get along without more stents for awhile longer. It would
be a big help though to know how fast my disease is progressing. I
have no clue though.
Port
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Heart scans
- From: br
- Re: Heart scans
- References:
- Heart scans
- From: Port
- Re: Heart scans
- From: Joe Doe
- Heart scans
- Prev by Date: Re: My cholesterol dropped a lot in 4 weeks ?
- Next by Date: Re: Heart scans
- Previous by thread: Re: Heart scans
- Next by thread: Re: Heart scans
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|