Electrocardiogram in hospital surgery operating emergency room showing patient heart rate with blur team of surgeons background

Comment from Dr. Robert J. Rowen

Here is “medical science”. It is not science at all.

Millions of stents and bypass procedures worldwide and done with nothing backing them.

It cost 100M of your money to show this.

But what about vaccines? We have a world of dogma here, and vaccines are not imposed on sporadic children, but ALL of them.

If the government can spend 100M for heart studies that affect people late in life, why can’t it spend a fraction of that for a similar all cause morbidly and mortality study on children who have a full lifetime ahead?

And, why did the government not include some “alternative” therapies for comparison, like chelation and oxidation therapy?

I just got an awesome report from a patient of ours this week. His ejection fraction (percentage of blood pumped out in a single stroke), has improved from a mediocre 30% to 60% with our work.

His cardiologist told him, “I don’t know what it is you are doing, but whatever it is, keep it up!”

Big study casts doubt on need for many heart procedures

by Marilynn Marchione – AP
Medical Xpress


People with severe but stable heart disease from clogged arteries may have less chest pain if they get a procedure to improve blood flow rather than just giving medicines a chance to help, but it won’t cut their risk of having a heart attack or dying over the following few years, a big federally funded study found.

The results challenge medical dogma and call into question some of the most common practices in heart care. They are the strongest evidence yet that tens of thousands of costly stent procedures and bypass operations each year are unnecessary or premature for people with stable disease.

For non-emergency cases, the study shows “there’s no need to rush” into invasive tests and procedures, said New York University’s Dr. Judith Hochman.

There might even be harm: To doctors’ surprise, study participants who had a procedure were more likely to suffer a heart problem or die over the next year than those treated with medicines alone.

“This study clearly goes against what has been the common wisdom for the last 30, 40 years” and may lead to less testing and invasive treatment for such patients in the future, said Dr. Glenn Levine, a Baylor College of Medicine cardiologist with no role in the research. Some doctors still may quibble with the study, but it was very well done “and I think the results are extremely believable,” he said.

Twelve years ago, a big study found that angioplasty was no better than medicines for preventing heart attacks and deaths in non-emergency heart patients, but many doctors balked at the results and quarreled with the methods.

So the federal government spent $100 million for the new study, which is twice as large, spanned 37 countries and included people with more severe disease—a group most likely to benefit from stents or a bypass.

Read the full story at Medical Xpress