I echo your last statement. You seem to have found something that works for you. I respect that you believe in it enough to share and try to help others. If your doctor says it's a good idea, who am I to disagree.
I expect my cardiologist will say NFW. But I'm always willing to test the things I think I know. If I'm wrong, I'll follow up with you.
My comments are about the peer-reviewed research and advanced testing methods with wide-ranging implications, for better outcomes for lots of people.
It takes time to get cardiologists and others to learn and adapt to modern research, just like with many other fields.
Insurance companies put up barriers to change as well. It can take years for them to modernize and adapt.
Committees who regulate and create guidelines often include individuals with strong self-interest in specific outcomes, or the status quo. Barriers to change can include positions and places of employment, business arrangements, patents, investments, books, teaching contracts, hospital financing, capital investments in old discarded methods, outdated testing protocols, obsoleting or lowering use of profitable medications, research funding etc.
Lots of things hinder progress.
The important factor is adopting strategies that best fit the situation for the individual.
Taking a pro-active stance during times of change, may require getting additional "opinions" from practitioners who are actually updated and trained in the newer understandings.
That step may or may not lead to a better approach for a specific individual. But, more modern, updated "evidenced-based medicine" and informed decision-making may be able to help a lot of people.
Many individuals may have care options optimized for their situation, instead of optimized for a system that has not yet caught up to the more modern research advances.
Good luck jdm202, with whatever lies ahead...
Last edited: