_

[_ @cscomaMD]

@JReinerMD @DavidLBrownMD Said every old person to every young person in every profession since the history of mankind.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@MiocanDanijel He’s selling something (obviously) and he has low medical IQ. But good business acumen.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@DrDiGiorgio @ViktorShvets @megbasham Mush-brain take. Christ almighty.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@StevenQuartz The difference is he’s not selling people a diet for brain health.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@cremieuxrecueil @AmmousMD I think you’re just feeding an engagement farming troll who profits off a specific crowd. I appreciate your efforts but there is no honest debate with people like that because they are not trying to debate, just drive engagement to book more $800 consultations.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@ZKForTre He’s promoting an AI-powered health business. Keep fighting the good fight man, but to answer your first query, I would say the poster is likely sincere (in his lack of understanding of medical information) and financially motivated.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@StevenQuartz I have no complaints with active rigorous science testing the limits of our understanding of atherosclerosis. But “watch my documentary” is not a valid argument to debunk decades of one of the most-studied hypotheses in cardiology. I think we all know what the authors are doing.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@ZKForTre I follow you because you fight the good fight, but I honestly don’t know how you have the energy to respond to so many grifters and hacks.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@GilbertTangMD @VinodThourani What was the mechanism of death between the two groups? I am not understanding why there was a major mortality difference but no difference in HFH, which is what this valve is designed to treat.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@djc795 @JAMarbach @NavinKapur4 I meant data to support impella use at all. Only recently did we learn it can be helpful in shock (notwithstanding isar-shock—not powered for outcomes). Protect II not helpful. It’s a very expensive device with very limited data.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@djc795 @JAMarbach @NavinKapur4 Shouldn’t we have had high quality evidence before we’ve been using it for years? Rhetorical obviously, but it is confusing to see so many cardiologists surprised at the result when we never had the data to begin with.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@XavierPrida @sumanbiswasmd @ACCinTouch @Cardiology @UCSFCardiology @ACCmediacenter 1) Show up
2) Do your best
3) Never worry alone

[_ @cscomaMD]

@venkmurthy @drjohnm The biggest takeaway from this for me is that the “notification included a patient-specific image of CAC” and yet there were 0 invasive angiograms at follow-up.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@drjohnm An interventional cardiologist told me once, “If the FFR is positive, I stent and move on.” There are plenty of bad physicians, I just didn’t write a book about it. In my experience, interventionalists are equally as conservative as other cardiologists.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@khurramn1 I am still waiting for a clinical outcomes RCT of treatment of calcium scores. Until then, we are still dealing in uncertainties with these recommendations and their targets. I treat most CAC as secondary prevention with goal LDL<70 but we have to have therapeutic humility.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@drjohnm @Sensible__Med As someone who reads CCTAs and advocates strongly against CT-FFR, my answer to “but what if the CT-FFR comes back low?” is always “who cares?” Treat the patient, not a number.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@ZKForTre They will retract that paper when hell freezes over. Too much skin in the game.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@MichaelAlbertMD Longevity is the grifter rebrand of preventative medicine.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@NutritionMadeS3 The poster you’re referring to needs visual proof of an amino acid, as he posts from his cellphone emitting electromagnetic radiation.

[_ @cscomaMD]

@VictorDayan1 @JACCJournals What is misleading about the circled sentence? Ischemia and Revived-BCIS do question the necessity of routine revasc. The merits of CABG vs PCI can be further discussed but there is nothing offensive about the sentence you circled.