What do you have to say for yourself, given that doctors and stent companies are promoting expensive and dangerous procedures without profits?
“Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)” – Angioplasty and Stent Placement – “It continues to be done frequently in patients with stable (non-urgent) coronary artery disease despite clear evidence that it provides minimal benefits…” A heart attack. “At the same time, the cardiologists who introduced them to the PCI and those who performed the procedures generally did not believe that PCI would reduce the risk of MI (myocardial infarction or heart attack) in stable angina pectoris.” So why were they doing that?
“The focus group of cardiologists documented the cracks between knowledge and behavior, while recognizing the results of clinical trials” (opposite evidence), “They believe it will help in an inappropriate way, so they recommend and perform PCI.” “Physicians tended to justify non-meaning approaches by focusing on the ease of PCI and the belief that open arteries are better (though “I know that data is not profitable”). This procedure kills only one in 150 people, so some accused them of not listening to the patient, but perhaps the doctor is someone who ignores the evidence.
Or, “Doctors may have too poor grasp of relevant statistics to properly inform patients.” Anyway, what we have is “communication failure.” That’s why the tool was developed. For example, a sample informed consent document introduces potential benefits and risks, even laying out the number of steps performed by a physician and out-of-pocket costs. As you can see below and in my video at 1:58, the stent stent risk versus benefits for angioplasty, many blanks need to be filled out. What are the specific numbers?
Mayo Clinic came up with some prototype decision making tools, as shown below and at 2:20 in my video. From a profit perspective, “Does putting a stent on my heart prevent heart attacks and death? No. Stents don’t reduce the risk of heart attacks and death,” but I report that people who get the stent will feel better after a week. Nevertheless, it appeared to have the advantage of temporary relief for chest pain. What about the risk?
As shown at 2:53 in my video, out of 100 people during a stent procedure, two suffer from bleeding or damage to the blood vessels, and one suffers more serious complications such as heart attack, stroke or death. Then, in the first year after the placement of the stent, the three will hold a bleeding event because blood thinner must be taken for the heart’s outpatient materials, but it does not always work, so the two clog the stent, leading to a heart attack.
What must the world’s number one stent maker say about itself? The evidence acknowledges that stents do not let people live longer, but manufacturers believe that longevity is overestimated. If we only care about living a long life in medicine, then “the whole whole field, such as dermatology, ophthalmology, orthopedic surgery, dentistry, etc., may decrease or even disappear.” So why do we go to a dentist? Of course, the difference is that in my video, as shown here, I don’t believe filling the cavity will save my life, as if I accidentally stent for a stent.
Stent companies actively provide ads and misinformation to create heartwarming copies. “Open your heart and your life.” “Open your heart and your life.” “Open your heart and your life. Life is wide open.” “Freedom starts here.” Their TV ads mention some side effects, but you can see that they missed out on some. More importantly, they give the false impression that stents are more than expensive and dangerous band-aids for temporary symptoms relief. But what’s the problem with alleviating symptoms? What’s the problem if people think that benefits outweigh the risks, even if they’re symptomatic and don’t last long?
What if you say that even symptom relief can be an elaborate placebo effect and you can get the same relief from a sham surgery? Make sure science says.
