"My doctor prescribed a statin. I asked for 90 days instead." Which is what you do "when you stop outsourcing your authority". This is my biggest takeaway (not the only one!), and it's a solid confirmation that a decision I made 5+ years ago NOT to have my gallbladder removed was absolutely the right one.
My ask was to add some protocols to my routine and then check back yearly. (Actually, I didn't ask the surgeon during the consult. I kinda informed him.)
Every year showed improvement.
The medical system puts alot of pressure on people to do it their way.
You need to know why they're saying what they're saying. You need to know what alternatives are available. You need to know your body. It helps immensely to have a collaborator in the system. My brilliant primary care doc was that for me.
This is excellent, detailed, documented reporting. Thank you.
Susan, yes! And saying "I asked for 90 days instead" is not accurate. Like you, I informed her. I don't blame the doctors. This is the lens through which Western medicine is taught, and they are offering what they believe is right. Western medicine is amazing for acute situations, but I've found it quite lacking for chronic ones, which is probably why the epidemic is chronic disease. All that said, I get sad when I hear people getting parts removed, and I'm glad you found an "alternative." I'd be interested in hearing more about that (offline) sometime.
I actually wrote a whole piece explaining some of the nuances of the chronic disease epidemic that you may enjoy. Here's part 2 which addresses your above comment.
Conventional medicine does NOT say diet will get you 10% at best. Maybe on average since most people don't stick to dietary changes and the average is dragged down.
Also, lowering LDL levels in the blood does not affect hormone levels or tissue repair. We know this from extreme cases where people are born with very low LDL, ApoB, and LPa. The results? Only some concerns with cortisol and infections, but at an LDL level you could never achieve with drugs.
Great on you for lowering your cholesterol, but no need to trash conventional doctors with lies; especially when you get some cholesterol basics wrong. P.S. We know stress causes high sugar levels.
You're right that the 5-10% range I originally cited was low. I've revised the opening to reflect current literature (10-25%). My 32% drop still stands out, and I appreciate you pushing me to be more precise.
Would you like to also be more precise about your trashing of medical doctors? It is not as simple as "you check the box, you take the pill." It is actually "your risk is higher than the level where we see people benefit from taking a pill, so it's recommended you take one." That risk was calculated from several different factors, not simply cholesterol level (although there are cases where LDL alone is high enough to benefit from medication).
"My doctor prescribed a statin. I asked for 90 days instead." Which is what you do "when you stop outsourcing your authority". This is my biggest takeaway (not the only one!), and it's a solid confirmation that a decision I made 5+ years ago NOT to have my gallbladder removed was absolutely the right one.
My ask was to add some protocols to my routine and then check back yearly. (Actually, I didn't ask the surgeon during the consult. I kinda informed him.)
Every year showed improvement.
The medical system puts alot of pressure on people to do it their way.
You need to know why they're saying what they're saying. You need to know what alternatives are available. You need to know your body. It helps immensely to have a collaborator in the system. My brilliant primary care doc was that for me.
This is excellent, detailed, documented reporting. Thank you.
Susan, yes! And saying "I asked for 90 days instead" is not accurate. Like you, I informed her. I don't blame the doctors. This is the lens through which Western medicine is taught, and they are offering what they believe is right. Western medicine is amazing for acute situations, but I've found it quite lacking for chronic ones, which is probably why the epidemic is chronic disease. All that said, I get sad when I hear people getting parts removed, and I'm glad you found an "alternative." I'd be interested in hearing more about that (offline) sometime.
I actually wrote a whole piece explaining some of the nuances of the chronic disease epidemic that you may enjoy. Here's part 2 which addresses your above comment.
https://thescamdoctor.substack.com/p/youre-being-lied-to-about-chronic-42c?r=6hgshq
Conventional medicine does NOT say diet will get you 10% at best. Maybe on average since most people don't stick to dietary changes and the average is dragged down.
Also, lowering LDL levels in the blood does not affect hormone levels or tissue repair. We know this from extreme cases where people are born with very low LDL, ApoB, and LPa. The results? Only some concerns with cortisol and infections, but at an LDL level you could never achieve with drugs.
Great on you for lowering your cholesterol, but no need to trash conventional doctors with lies; especially when you get some cholesterol basics wrong. P.S. We know stress causes high sugar levels.
You're right that the 5-10% range I originally cited was low. I've revised the opening to reflect current literature (10-25%). My 32% drop still stands out, and I appreciate you pushing me to be more precise.
Would you like to also be more precise about your trashing of medical doctors? It is not as simple as "you check the box, you take the pill." It is actually "your risk is higher than the level where we see people benefit from taking a pill, so it's recommended you take one." That risk was calculated from several different factors, not simply cholesterol level (although there are cases where LDL alone is high enough to benefit from medication).