Coronary Stents Do Not Save Lives – Eating Crow Series
An Article of Eating Crow Series
Majid Ali, M.D.
In this article, I show how the lapdogs of The New York Times admitted that coronary artery stents do not save lives except under true emergency situations. The Time’s lapdog Joe did so without eating crow. Please read the article and then decide if I take cheap shots at the Times here.
Here are some quotes from an article published in The New York Times on February 27, 2012 entitled “No Extra Benefits Are Seen in Stents for Coronary Artery Disease.” This was not news for me. My patients with failed coronary stents and bypass operations taught me this many years ago. The sixth volume of my 14-volume text book is entitled “Integrative Cardiology and Chelation Therapies.” I devote large chapters in this book to marshal scientific evidence for my view that coronary artery disease is not a plumbing problem.
The Times’ article concerned a comprehensive analysis of the data published in earlier studies published in The Archives of Internal Medicine. There were 7,229 patients in all. Consider the following quote from the Times’ article:
“Dr. Harlan Krumholz, a cardiologist and professor of medicine at Yale who was not involved in the study, said that the findings hold a lesson for doctors treating heart patients. “When people are making decisions, it’s important to disclose to them that this procedure — outside of an emergency — is not known to be lifesaving or to prevent heart attacks,” he said. “The vast majority of people who have this procedure have the expectation that it will help them live longer. That belief is out of alignment with the evidence.”
According to Dr. Brown, a professor of medicine at Stony Brook University, many doctors cannot accept this. Instead, he said, “interventional cardiologists use the analogy of a pipe blocked in a house — it’s a terrible analogy, but patients accept it. It’s simplistic and erroneous.”
Here are two more quotes:
“In many hospitals, the cardiac service line generates 40 percent of the total hospital revenue, so there’s incredible pressure to do more procedures,” he said.
“When you put in a stent, everyone is happy — the hospital is making more money, the doctor is making more money — everybody is happier except the health care system as a whole, which is paying more money for no better results.”
Here is what takes the cake in the Times’ article:
“Dr. Allan Schwartz, chief of cardiology at Columbia, who was not involved in the study, said that the analysis reinforced what was already known — that treatment with medicine first is usually the best approach.”
The Crucial Question
Why didn’t the Times’ journalists, who claim to be watchdogs, never bothered to diligently review the records of doctors who reverse heart disease and speak directly with the patients to validate the accuracy of medical records?
Were these Time’s journalists watchdogs or lapdog Joes? Did the Times ever apologize for kits brazen neglect in misinforming its readers for decades? Did Times ever editorially eat crow?
If any readers still think I am being unethical myself in my Eating Crow Series, I invite them to write to me at http://email@example.com.
Click here to see more on eating crow: https://www.google.com/search?q=eating+crow&biw=1187&bih=514&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=FM_xVOWHOqHlsATD8oGQCg&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ
On February 27, 2012, on the subject of coronary stents, the Times reversed itself in a front page story. I turned to the editorial page to see if it had eaten some crows about its past glorification of coronary stents. I found none. I was not surprised. Times never ate crows when it reversed itself many times before on natural healing practices, most notably when it reversed itself on its past positions on coronary artery stents and cholesterol drugs.