SEARCH
The Framingham Risk Score for Hard Coronary Heart Disease
Related: atherosclerosis, ethics in medicine, gears of the machine, health, risk assessment, statin
See my reading list, invest the hours and decide for yourself. Plan on 80 to 200 hours of study to go through a variety of work, and more time still to think it through critically. You MUST NOT just go google this. Start with one book, and go from there, and by all means read as many as you can, no matter the POV. Suck it up, and get it done and save your mental and physical life. Ask your doctor sweetly and politely if s/he has read any of the books on my reading list; print it out and take it there.
Ask your doctor about this scoring mechanism. S/he will probably have no clue, having been trained via incestuous intellectual amplification during and after medical training.
The Framingham Risk Score for Hard Coronary Heart Disease
There are just a few minor adjustments you might have to make*:
- If you are a French man, divide the risk score by about 4.
- Italian? Divide the risk score by about 2.8.
- Australian aboriginal woman? Multiply the risk score by 37 or so.
Other than these few minor adjustments and lots of other “special” cases, it’s super accurate in terms of math (because modern computers are superb at GIGO). You can’t make this stuff up!
That is, it is a scoring mechanism proven to be wildly inaccurate. Even excluding glaring exceptions (a few of which are are noted above), it is still at its core an epidemiological tool, and to apply an epidemiological statistical tool to an indvividual is intellectual and medical malpractice. It is also unethical to use it for an individual, at least if a doctor takes “first do no harm” seriously. The examples cited above prove that directly!
* Source: The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr. Malcom Kendrick @AMAZON
DOCTORS: you owe it to patients and your integrity to broaden your knowledge beyond the orthodoxy, which is intellectually and financially corrupt
Do NOT take my word for it as I have NO medical training and failed to get the proper indoctrination. But I have no vested interests here other than the truth.
Do your own research and come to your own conclusions.
If after spending 150 hours or so studying the matter (all from other MDs) I had found that a statin would really do me significant absolute statistical benefit, I would take it. But what I found is this:
- The relative benefit figure quoted by the medical establishment is a misleading bullshit figure based on tiny differences.
- Statins have huge implications for doing grieveous and increasing harm over time (like a 2700% greater risk of polyneuropathy with statins among dozens of other greatly increased risks (including strokes)
- Studies have shown that doctors routinely dismiss, ignore and FAIL TO REPORT side effects at least 70% of the time. Some are are almost never reported by doctors as adverse events, such as muscle aches, “mild” mental issues (cognitive, depression, etc).
- Effect can accumulate as the poison (statin) continually suppresses the body’s ability to properly repair and maintain itself.
I am thoroughly disgusted with the medical establishment after my research.
