2 ms·

I had one doctor do a lipid test, then tell me how horrible my numbers are and that I needed to get on meds, stat. Took the lipid test again with a different d

I had one doctor do a lipid test, then tell me how horrible my numbers are and that I needed to get on meds, stat. Took the lipid test again with a different doctor, and the numbers were fine. How come? First "doctor" forgot that it was supposed to be a fasting test, took my blood shortly after a fried fish dinner, and charged me $400+ for a pointless scare. And this is just a recent example. I could go on and on with personal examples of drive-by medicine. The overwhelming majority of "doctors" all have a favorite hammer, and the rest of us end up getting nailed with it.

epcoa 3y ago
https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/farewell-fasting-cholesterol-test-201606169784 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/farewell-fasting-cholest... I don't know the exact details of your case so not responding to that, but routine lipid testing does not need to be fasting even though the test is often marked as a "fasting" test. The only number that is acutely affected is triglycerides. Some labs still call it a fasting test - but we do not routinely advise patients to fast before a lipid screen since the main screening numbers are LDL and HDL. It gets more complicated with triglycerides. A general sensible approach is that if triglycerides are over 400 on a non-fasting test to repeat with a fasting test. > The overwhelming majority of "doctors" all have a favorite hammer, In this case the diagnostic and management algorithm is pretty straightforward, unfortunately not all doctors are that good. Not sure if "overwhelming majority." is the case.
- hello_computer 3y ago
  The triglycerides were the concern, and it is infuriating. Any other business would at least express come contrition and issue a refund, or at least an apology, but not doctors. If anything, she was upset that I wouldn't make her next appointment. We have so many olds and self-abusers in this country that medicine has become the new religion--with doctors as the new priests; pharmaceuticals and procedures as the new sacraments. How can we hold the priest responsible for the parishioner's sin? After all, the parishioner did not eat the right things, or did not exercise enough, or was tainted with the original sin of his own genetics. edit: The mentality is boldly duplicitous. When you challenge their diagnoses on their own turf, they are men and women "of science", and you are a fool to yourself to question them, but when the mistakes are laid bare; being discussed inside of a courtroom--see how fast the appellation changes: from "man of science" to "humble practitioner".

epcoa 3y ago

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/farewell-fasting-cholesterol-test-201606169784 https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/farewell-fasting-cholest... I don't know the exact details of your case so not responding to that, but routine lipid testing does not need to be fasting even though the test is often marked as a "fasting" test. The only number that is acutely affected is triglycerides. Some labs still call it a fasting test - but we do not routinely advise patients to fast before a lipid screen since the main screening numbers are LDL and HDL. It gets more complicated with triglycerides. A general sensible approach is that if triglycerides are over 400 on a non-fasting test to repeat with a fasting test. > The overwhelming majority of "doctors" all have a favorite hammer, In this case the diagnostic and management algorithm is pretty straightforward, unfortunately not all doctors are that good. Not sure if "overwhelming majority." is the case.

hello_computer 3y ago
The triglycerides were the concern, and it is infuriating. Any other business would at least express come contrition and issue a refund, or at least an apology, but not doctors. If anything, she was upset that I wouldn't make her next appointment. We have so many olds and self-abusers in this country that medicine has become the new religion--with doctors as the new priests; pharmaceuticals and procedures as the new sacraments. How can we hold the priest responsible for the parishioner's sin? After all, the parishioner did not eat the right things, or did not exercise enough, or was tainted with the original sin of his own genetics. edit: The mentality is boldly duplicitous. When you challenge their diagnoses on their own turf, they are men and women "of science", and you are a fool to yourself to question them, but when the mistakes are laid bare; being discussed inside of a courtroom--see how fast the appellation changes: from "man of science" to "humble practitioner".