Wesley: I stabbed you. I should apologize for that. But I'm honestly not sure how. I think it'll just be awkward. Gunn: Good call. Wesley: Okay.

'Time Bomb'


Natter 73: Chuck Norris only wishes he could Natter  

Off-topic discussion. Wanna talk about corsets, duct tape, butt kicking, or physics? This is the place. Detailed discussion of any current-season TV must be whitefonted.


Steph L. - Jun 27, 2014 9:27:05 am PDT #884 of 30000
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe

The woman behind you reminds me of the recent xkcd about saying "people are stupid" which ignores the fact that people of average intelligence (or very smart people for that matter) can still be stupid. And are. Often.

Yesterday I edited a really interesting article long these lines. Background: it's been clinically proven that in heart patients who have angina and have some artery blockage *but NOT complete blockage*, a balloon angioplasty procedure to open the partial blockage does NOT prevent a theoretical future heart attack, but drug therapy does.

The article was about the percentage of patients who choose to undergo the balloon angioplasty if (1) they are told nothing about the lack of heart attack prevention; (2) they are told just the fact that angioplasty doesn't prevent a heart attack; or (3) they are told that angioplasty doesn't prevent a heart attack AND an explanation of why that is.

As you might expect, group 1 chose angioplasty in a pretty high percentage (like >80%). Group 2 still chose angioplasty at a rate of about 36%, and group 3, despite getting an explanation of why the procedure doesn't do what they think it will, chose angioplasty 30% of the time.

When asked why they chose angioplasty, the #1 reason in all 3 groups was because it would prevent a heart attack. Even in the 2 groups that were explicitly told it wouldn't. And, interestingly, a high proportion of the people who chose angioplasty -- among all 3 groups -- say they remember the doctor telling them it WOULD prevent a heart attack.

Dang, man.


meara - Jun 27, 2014 9:35:49 am PDT #885 of 30000

How interesting, Teppy. Does it hold other benefits, like stopping some of the angina?


Calli - Jun 27, 2014 9:44:07 am PDT #886 of 30000
I must obey the inscrutable exhortations of my soul—Calvin and Hobbs

That sounds like a lot of difficult stuff at once, Burrell.

ita, I'm sorry your migraine doc is less useful than a tool.


Ginger - Jun 27, 2014 9:48:46 am PDT #887 of 30000
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda

I probably wouldn't have been so irritated if it weren't for the fact that five minutes on the subject of scrambled eggs makes me feel nauseated.

There have been several studies that showed that even after being told numerous times that the treatment being offered will only make them feel better, by reducing pain or other symptoms, cancer patients believe the treatment is curative.


Steph L. - Jun 27, 2014 9:53:59 am PDT #888 of 30000
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe

How interesting, Teppy. Does it hold other benefits, like stopping some of the angina?

It does alleviate the angina more rapidly than drug therapy does, but the effect diminished over time; conversely, drug therapy is initially slow to alleviate angina, but as long as the patient is adherent to therapy, it is effective over a longer period.


Ginger - Jun 27, 2014 9:56:37 am PDT #889 of 30000
"It didn't taste good. It tasted soooo horrible. It tasted like....a vodka martini." - Matilda

While I'm whining...

Dear guy who said "My wife thinks I complain too much":

She's right.


Laura - Jun 27, 2014 10:12:29 am PDT #890 of 30000
Our wings are not tired.

Dear guy who said "My wife thinks I complain too much"

Ha! Listen to the wifey.


meara - Jun 27, 2014 10:51:28 am PDT #891 of 30000

t does alleviate the angina more rapidly than drug therapy does, but the effect diminished over time; conversely, drug therapy is initially slow to alleviate angina, but as long as the patient is adherent to therapy, it is effective over a longer period.

Can they do both? Or is that contraindicated?

There have been several studies that showed that even after being told numerous times that the treatment being offered will only make them feel better, by reducing pain or other symptoms, cancer patients believe the treatment is curative.

Yeah, sadly, given my line of work, I'm aware of that. On the other hand, I think some patients hear that and think "OMG I'll be dead in a month", when sometimes people can live for years and years with not-cured-but-not-worsening cancer.


Steph L. - Jun 27, 2014 10:53:36 am PDT #892 of 30000
Unusually and exceedingly peculiar and altogether quite impossible to describe

t does alleviate the angina more rapidly than drug therapy does, but the effect diminished over time; conversely, drug therapy is initially slow to alleviate angina, but as long as the patient is adherent to therapy, it is effective over a longer period.

Can they do both? Or is that contraindicated?

They can do both. I think that, from a managed-health/cost-savings perspective, the goal is to not perform angioplasty in patients for whom it has no mortality benefit. And that makes sense to me. (Plus, there's always a risk when you do an invasive procedure in an artery with blockage. Better to avoid that risk if you can.)


Jesse - Jun 27, 2014 11:06:46 am PDT #893 of 30000
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.

Dear guy who said "My wife thinks I complain too much":

She's right.

Hee.

I feel very smart in that I had two meetings this afternoon in which the participants just went there and told the truth about all kinds of things, and it was enormously satisfying and now it's almost time to go. FRIDAY!